Volume 5 (2014) Issue 1
The Teaching and Learning of
Lexical Chunks:
A Comparison of Observe Hypothesise Experiment
and
Presentation Practice Production
Patrycja Golebiewska / Christian Jones (both Preston,
UK)
Abstract
The focus of this study is the comparison of two
teaching frameworks: Presentation Practice Production (PPP) and Observe Hypothesise Experiment (OHE) in the context of teaching
twelve lexical chunks to two groups of twenty-one EAP students. An
analysis of pre- and post-test scores demonstrated that both
frameworks were successful in aiding students’ productive and
receptive knowledge of the target language. The question as to
whether one framework was more effective than the other in the
context studied was answered negatively, since no statistically
significant difference between the treatment types was found. The
results suggest that both input and output oriented activities can
aid the acquisition of chunks to the same extent and thus, perhaps,
the choice between these frameworks may be more dependent on teaching
and learning styles than upon their impact on the acquisition of
formulaic language.
Key
words: Observe Hypothesise Experiment, Presentation Practice
Production, formulaic language, lexical chunks, productive
knowledge, receptive knowledge, input oriented activities, output
oriented activities
1 Introduction
The
existence and significance of prefabricated lexico-grammatical chunks
in native speakers’ language production is widely agreed on (e.g.
Pawley & Syder 1983, Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992, Wray 2005).
Corpus studies (e.g. Erman & Warren 2000, Foster 2001) have
revealed that native speakers tend to resort to chunks which are
‘idiomatic’, i.e. automatically accepted as the ‘preferred’
linguistic choices in a given context
and stored / extracted as wholes from our mental lexicon. Apart
from the role formulaic sequences have in idiomatic language use, it
has been recognised that they are central
to fluency (Pawley & Syder 1983, Wood 2001, 2006, 2009), and have
various pragmatic and socio-linguistic functions (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992, Kasper & Rose 2001). Moreover, Dörnyei (1995)
proposes that certain lexical chunks can help students to overcome
communication breakdowns by assisting learners in employing
communication strategies such as stalling,
circumlocution, and appeals
for help and approximation. Considering the
various functions of lexical chunks and their prevalent nature in
native speakers’ discourse, it has been suggested that they would
benefit L2 learners (Willis 1990, Nattinger & DeCarrico
1992, Lewis 1993, 1997, 2000). However, research
into the teaching of formulaic sequences is limited, and the studies
conducted to date have produced mixed results (Boers & Lindstromberg 2012). This study aims to contribute to the discussion
by reporting on a comparison of two teaching frameworks: Presentation
Practice Production (PPP) and the Observe Hypothesise Experiment
(OHE) employed to teach twelve chunks to forty-two adult learners
enrolled on an International Foundation Programme (IFP) at a British
university. The following research questions were posed:
RQ 1a:
Does explicit instruction (with the use of PPP or OHE)
affect students’ productive knowledge of chosen chunks necessary
for stalling and circumlocution?
RQ
1b:
Are
either of the treatments (PPP or OHE) more effective than the other
in terms of aiding students’ productive knowledge of the target
forms?
RQ
2a:
Does
explicit instruction (with the use of PPP or OHE) affect students’
receptive knowledge of chosen chunks necessary for stalling and
circumlocution?
RQ
2b:
Are
either of the treatments (PPP or OHE) more effective than the other
in terms of aiding students’ receptive knowledge of the target
forms?
2 Literature Review
The notion that language production relies to a great
extent on the retrieval of prefabricated chunks was first proposed in
the early 1930s (Jackson 1932 and Firth 1935). These claims were
later followed by Hymes (1962) and Fillmore (1979) who proposed terms
such as collocations
(Firth 1935), linguistic routines
(Hymes 1962) or formulaic utterances
when describing recurring linguistic patterns.
However, due to the lack of empirical evidence at the
time, Chomsky’s (1966, 1975) theory of
generative grammar started to shape the views
on language production. Linguistic creativity, restricted only by the
rules of syntax, was considered central to successful language use.
Chomsky’s model was challenged by Hymes (1972) who argued that the
notion of purely linguistic competence was too narrow to account for
real-life communication, and proposed the concept of ‘communicative
competence’ highlighting the need for not only grammatically
correct but also pragmatically successful communication. Pawley and
Syder (1983) developed this discussion by stating that although
native speakers have the creative ability to produce an infinite
number of utterances, they tend to resort to a repertoire of
prefabricated "lexicalised sentence stems"
which are ‘idiomatic’ i.e. automatically accepted as
‘native-like’ and not deviant’,
by the other members of the speech community.The view that much
language is formulaic was also supported
by Nattinger (1980, 1986) and Nattinger & DeCarrico (1989), who
coined the term ‘lexical phrases’ defined as
multi-word lexical phenomena that exist somewhere between the traditional poles of lexicon and syntax and which are similar to lexicon in being treated as units, yet most of them consist of more than one word. (Nattinger and DeCarrico 1992:1)
Claims
made by Hymes (1972), Pawley & Syder (1983) and Nattinger (1980,
1986) as well as Nattinger & DeCarrico (1989) were confirmed when
corpora started to be more widely used as a research tool (Altenberg
& Eeg-Olofsson 1990, Renouf & Sinclair 1991, Sinclair 1991,
Kjellmer 1994, Altenberg 1998, Stubbs 2001). The empirical evidence
emerging from text analysis demonstrated that words recur in clusters
which are on a cline from almost random partnerships to fully fixed
expressions and that lexis and grammar can be seen as two elements of
the same continuum. The notion of lexico-grammar, first introduced by
Halliday (1961) and Hasan (1987), was further developed by Sinclair
(1991, 1996), who proposed that the correlation between syntax and
lexis makes it impossible to analyse either of them in isolation,
since different words appear to have their own grammar with
distinctive collocational, colligational, semantic, pragmatic and
generic associations (Aston, 2001:15). Moreover, Sinclair’s (1991,
1996) model of language further emphasised the formulaic nature of
language production where, as Sinclair proposed, the majority of
spoken and written texts are constructed and can be interpreted,
using the idiom principle, and not the open-choice principle as
Chomsky suggested. The
idiom principle simply means that speakers and writers construct much
language by using formulaic sequences, rather than creating language
from the ‘open choice’ of syntax. This suggests that chunks such
as Will
you marry me?
are not constructed in the speaker’s mind word by word but as one
complete chunk.
The corpus-driven language description provided by
Sinclair influenced ELT syllabuses whose focus started to shift from
grammar-led instruction to a greater focus on lexis. The first
attempt at incorporating lexis into the language classroom was
Sinclair & Renouf’s (1988) lexical syllabus which was based on
the findings from the COBUILD (Collins–Birmingham University
International Language Database) project. Sinclair & Renouf’s
work was put into practice by Willis (1990) and took the form of
three course books (COBUILD English Course) based around the 2,500
most frequent words and word patterns found in the COBUILD corpus. In
terms of pedagogy, Willis proposed the use of authentic reading and
audio materials and a task-based methodology, combined with an
analysis of samples from the corpus. Nattinger & DeCarrico
(1992), on the other hand, emphasised the pragmatic roles many chunks
have in conversation and considered them pedagogically applicable,
particularly at the early stages of language development where
students are not yet
able to use the L2 creatively. Nattinger & DeCarrico did not
develop a separate procedure for the implementation of lexical
chunks. Instead, they advocated incorporating lexical phrases into
communicative activities which were already present in the classroom.
Moreover, they suggested that teachers should design activities which
would aid “the progression from routine to pattern to creative
language use” (Nattinger & DeCarrico 1992:116).
Perhaps the most well-known attempt at incorporating
lexical chunks into mainstream ELT was made by Lewis (1993, 1997,
2000) who introduced the lexical approach.
Drawing on the work of Sinclair (1991), Lewis (1993: 34) claimed that
language should be seen as ‘grammaticalised lexis’ and not
‘lexicalised grammar’, thus giving more importance to the
behaviour of words and word patterns in language production and
understanding. Alongside his theory of
language, Lewis also offered a theory of
learning. This theory
was greatly influenced by Krashen & Terrel’s (1983)
natural approach in the framework of which
authentic spoken and written input constitute the basis for L2
acquisition. Thus, Lewis advocated providing learners with high
volumes of comprehensible input and allowing students to observe,
rather than produce, the target forms. Moreover, Lewis emphasised the
need for input-centred consciousness-raising activities which allow
students to ‘notice’ (Schmidt 1990) chunks and lead to converting
input (which
language learners encounter) into intake (i.e.
language that is internalised). Lewis’ theories of language and
learning were to be reflected in the observe
hypothesise experiment (OHE) cycle which,
according to him, constituted the most effective way of teaching
lexical chunks. The framework, based around high volumes of input,
reflection and noticing, was presented in opposition to
presentation practice production (PPP) which
Lewis (1997) saw as a rule-driven, teacher-fronted, deductive
approach based on behaviourism. He claimed that PPP was ‘discredited’
as a form of pedagogy
(Lewis 1993:190).
Although Lewis (1993, 1997) very strongly argued in
favour of OHE, very little empirical evidence which supports these
assertions exists. Lewis (2000) points to his colleagues’ reports
which suggest that learners appeared to have benefited from
consciousness-raising activities, but such reports only amount to
anecdotal evidence, no matter how persuasively the arguments are
framed. In terms of research evidence, the efficacy of such
pedagogical interventions has not been clearly demonstrated.
Moreover, in their review of intervention studies on formulaic
sequences, Boers & Lindstromberg (2012) point out that no
consensus has been reached in terms of the most effective pedagogy for teaching formulaic sequences. They emphasise the need for empirical studies
stating that “the research conducted so far has raised almost as
many questions as it originally sought to answer” (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2012: 101). Therefore, the rationale for this study is
twofold. Firstly, we wished to use classroom research to evaluate
Lewis’ claims on the greater effectiveness of OHE (rather than PPP)
when teaching chunks. Secondly, as previously argued, there is a
general need for experimental classroom research concerned with how
to best facilitate the acquisition of chunks.
3 Methodology
3.1 Participants
The data in this study comes from an experimental
classroom research investigation conducted at a British university.
The participants were forty-two adult learners (25 female and 17
male) of mixed nationalities (30 Chinese, 11 Arab, 1 Japanese)
enrolled on a three-month pre-sessional Academic English course.
Students were of B2 level (upper intermediate) in accordance with the
Common European Framework (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001) and were
preparing to enter undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at
British universities.
3.2 Language Focus
Since it has
been observed (Clennell 1999, Jarvis & Stakounis 2010, Halenko
& Jones (2011) that EAP courses
do not tend to focus on conversational and interpersonal English,
many EAP students residing in English speaking countries are often
unable to communicate in a pragmatically effective manner in and
around the university setting. To address this issue, the chunks
selected for this study were chosen to fulfil clear pragmatic
functions. In this case, the focus was on time gaining and
circumlocution devices, because we felt that instruction on chunks
with these specified functions would aid the IFP students’ ability
to communicate in the L2 culture.
The formulaic sequences chosen for this study were
divided into two ‘sets’: stalling devices and
circumlocution devices, with the former
encompassing nine multi-word chunks and the latter three.
Stalling
Devices
|
Circumlocution
Devices
|
What
I mean is
As
a matter of fact
I
know what you mean
At
the end of the day
I’m
not entirely sure
Let’s
put it this way
To
be honest with you
What
I’m trying to say is
Let
me think/see
|
It’s
a bit like
It’s
(a) kind of/sort of
The
thing you use for + -ing.
|
Table 1. Chunks used in the study
It was felt that even though students were most probably
at least receptively familiar with some of the chunks, a number
greater than twelve would not be feasible considering the complexity
of the target forms and the length of treatment (90 minutes).
In terms of the distribution of
chunks and their roles, fewer circumlocution devices were selected,
since we would argue that the chunks chosen are sufficient to allow
students to describe unknown vocabulary and sustain conversation. A
greater number of stalling devices was included for the following
reasons. Firstly, although the chunks were presented to students as
time-gaining devices, it needs to be acknowledged that their
functions depend on the communicative situations they are used in
(Prodromou 2008). Thus, the chunk
as a matter of fact
can be used to emphasise the truth of the speaker‘s assertion. The
chunk I know what
you mean can
express agreement;
at the end of the day
can be a summariser and let‘s put it this way can mean ‘in
other words‘ when the speaker attempts to clarify something.
However, despite their various pragmatic functions, it is argued that
these chunks might not always be salient to L2 learners since they
are not crucial for conveying meaning. Therefore, it was hoped that
explicit instruction on these chunks would allow learners to notice
them in language input and eventually develop a sense of their uses.
Moreover, even though the assumption was that some level of receptive
knowledge was present, Bardovi-Harlig (2009) suggests that, while the
recognition of
formulas
is a necessary
condition for their production, it is not a sufficient one.
Bardovi-Harlig posits that students need to be able to interpret
relevant contexts in which they can use pragmatic routines, and this
is where highlighting such contexts in class may be useful for
learners.
In terms of chunk selection, the following procedure was
employed. First, Dörnyei and Thurrel’s (1992: 45, 65) lists of
stalling and circumlocution devices were consulted. The frequency of
chunks was checked against the British National Corpus (BNC), using
the Compleat Lexical Tutor (2012) online corpus data tool. Some of
the most frequent chunks were then selected following Schmitt’s
(2010) assertion that teaching frequent vocabulary gives students
more opportunities of recognising it in input and should eventually
lead to acquisition. Two chunks which appeared in Dornyei and
Thurrel's (1992) lists (what I'm trying
to say and the things you use for)
were also added, despite not being significantly frequent in the BNC. Moreover, the chunks at
the end of the day and
I’m not entirely sure were included, even
though they were not present in Dörnyei and Thurrel (1992). These
two decisions were based on our intuition that they would be useful
for learners in this context. In terms of form, the decision was made
to only include chunks of three words or more following Lewis’ (2000) claim that teaching longer chunks is more beneficial for learners
since
the larger the chunks are which learners originally acquire, the easier the task of re-producing natural language later .( Lewis’ 2000:13)
Thus, two-word chunks as well as items such as well,
actually, um/err which
appear in Dörnyei and Thurrel (1992) were discarded.
3.3 Study Design
Initially, 120 students, divided into four intact
classes, were taught the target forms with the use of OHE or PPP.
However, only data sets obtained from 42 learners were
suitable for our analysis due to students’ absence and test
incompletion. The study took the form of an experimental design.
Students first completed a written productive and receptive pre-test,
and then took part in a ninety-minute instruction.
It was essential to ensure that
the lessons represented each framework in the best possible way.
Therefore, the PPP treatment was designed following the guidance of
Byrne (1986) and Gabrielatos (1994). With regards to the OHE lesson,
Lewis’ (1993,
1997) suggestions
were employed, bearing in mind that while the design of a PPP class
is relatively clear-cut, there is no recipe
for a ‘typical’
OHE lesson. Therefore, a decision was made to adopt some of the
tasks found in Lewis (1997: 150), which had been developed and
reported by ELT teachers. The lesson involved activities such as
vocabulary grouping, highlighting chosen lexical features and
re-assembling cut-up phrases.
As
can be seen from the lesson procedures (see Appendix), the PPP lesson
needed to give students the opportunity to first focus on form and
function of the language and then to practice it in controlled and
freer activities. A
controlled activity is one in which the students use the language in
a restricted way (e.g. simply repeating after the teacher), and a
freer activity is one in which the target language can be used
alongside interlanguage that students can already produce (i.e. in a
role-play).
The OHE lesson, on the other hand, did not require students to
produce the language at any point. The aim of the OHE class was to
develop learners’ awareness of the selected chunks in terms of how
they are formed, what they mean and what they sound like. Raising
their awareness in this way was undertaken in the hope that they
would notice the chunks when used in the input around them and
eventually acquire them.
The
first five stages of the classes did not differ, at all. In each
group, students were first led into the topic; they then
prepared for a
listening-comprehension activity (three conversations likely to be
held on the university campus) and completed the first part of the
comprehension exercise (i.e. listening for gist and for specific
information). However, when completing the second part of the
comprehension exercise, the PPP students were asked to fill in gaps
with chunks they heard, while the OHE group needed to re-assemble
chunks which had been separated prior to the class. In the PPP group.
students had to then decide what functions these chunks played in the
conversation, as a part of focus on function (Gabrielatos 1994). This
first stage has been described as the
presentation stage
in the case of PPP and the
observe stage in
the OHE framework. It could be argued that the two stages did
not differ to a
great extent, since both of them
exemplified
the
language in context. However, in the presentation stage, students in
the PPP group also took part in choral and individual drills. In
the OHE group, at no point were the target forms repeated by the
students and the students‘ only task was to observe the language,
in this case to listen to it and to read it.
In the
practice stage
in the PPP group, students took part in activities which elicited the
language in focus. These involved a matching activity, in which the
final choice needed to be said out loud, and a description game, in
which students had to make use of circumlocution devices when
describing vocabulary items. In the
production stage,
students had to write and act out a conversation which they would be
likely to have
on the university
campus. Thus, at this point, students were expected to use the target
chunks together with other language features. In the OHE group, the
second phase involved creating
hypotheses
about the use of the
language in focus. Drawing on an activity found in Lewis (1997: 66),
students were set a task where they had to categorise the chunks
according to their function and then discuss their usefulness and
ease of use. Students also completed a group activity during which
the previously selected chunks were presented in context, some of
them being incorrect. The learners had to identify these chunks and
correct them. According to Lewis (1997), the use of ‘negative
evidence’ is beneficial to students as it involves them in further
cognitive processes which aid acquisition. All
the stages in the OHE class were based around guiding students to see
how the chunks are used in discourse in order for them to formulate
clear hypotheses about language. It was hoped that this heightened
awareness would eventually lead to them experimenting with the
language by using it outside of class.
The lesson in each group was
followed by an immediate written productive and receptive post-test.
A delayed test was distributed three weeks after the instruction. All
tests measured students’ receptive and productive ability of the
target items, but the order was amended each time to prevent
memorisation and the possible exchange of answers.
We recognise that a spoken test
would be more desirable when assessing the production of features of
spoken language. However, it was felt that using a less controlled
assessment, such as a discourse completion
test (Kasper & Dahl 1991) or a role-play,
might not have elicited the target forms, since they can be easily
avoided. Thus, a written test was deemed most appropriate for the
purpose of this study because it allowed us to measure students’
knowledge of the chunks prior and after the treatment, which
constituted the main focus of this study.
The test results were analysed
using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), which
allows an objective examination of gain scores through establishing
their statistical significance. In order to discover whether the
instruction had an immediate and / or
sustained
impact on students’
performance, a paired-samples t-test was conducted. Next, an
independent-samples t-test was used to compare the effectiveness of
the frameworks against each other. As pointed out by Dörnyei (2007),
it is essential to analyse gain scores for statistical significance
since a subjective analysis of raw scores cannot
indicate
whether the obtained
results are related to the treatment or whether they
occurred by chance.
4 Results and Discussion
In this section, the data which were obtained in this
study will be presented and analysed. The analysis and discussion of
results will refer to the research questions posed.
RQ1a: Does explicit instruction (with the use of PPP
or OHE) affect students’ productive knowledge of chosen chunks
necessary for stalling and circumlocution?
The first set of data illustrates the impact the
instruction had on students’ productive knowledge in each group. In
Table 2, the mean scores obtained in each test in the PPP and OHE
group are presented:
Type
of test
|
Number
of participants
|
Mean
score
PPP
|
Mean
score
OHE
|
Standard
deviation
PPP
|
Standard
deviation
OHE
|
Pre-test
|
21
|
8.86
|
9.35
|
6.78
|
3.66
|
Post-test
|
21
|
20.43
|
21.4
|
5.8
|
5.65
|
Delayed
test
|
21
|
13.38
|
17.1
|
7.28
|
5.75
|
Table 2: Mean scores obtained on
productive test in PPP and OHE group
From Table 2, it is noticeable that in both groups,
there is a substantial difference between the pre-test mean score and
the scores obtained in the post-test and the delayed test. However,
since reviewing raw scores does not allow us to determine whether the
achieved gains are significant and consistent enough to be assigned
to the treatments, it was essential to review the statistical data
obtained in the Paired Samples t-test. The results are presented in
Table 3.
Gain
scores
|
Mean
gain
PPP
|
Sig.
(2-tailed) p-value
PPP
|
Mean
gain OHE
|
Sig.
(2-tailed) p-value
OHE
|
Pre-test-Post-test
|
11.57143
|
.000
|
12.05000
|
.000
|
Pre-test-Delayed test
|
4.52381
|
.003
|
7.75000
|
.000
|
Post-test-Delayed
test
|
-7.57143
|
.001
|
-4.30000
|
.001
|
Table 3: Gain scores and their
statistical significance in PPP and OHE group (productive test)
As
seen from Table 3, in both groups, there is a statistically
significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores and,
therefore, it is safe to assume that both treatments had an immediate
effect on the students’ performance. The pre-test-delayed test
gains are also statistically significant, indicating that the effect of the treatment on the PPP and OHE students’ ability to use
the chunks was sustained over time. However,
it is also apparent that significant attrition
occurred between the post- and delayed
test in both groups. Schmitt (2000) points to attrition
as an inevitable element in vocabulary
learning and argues that the development of productive vocabulary
knowledge is more prone to attrition.
To sum up, the analysis of the test scores within each
group has demonstrated that the treatment had an effect on students’
performance on both the post-test and the delayed test. Therefore, it
was necessary to conduct an independent samples t-test to assess
whether one
framework was more effective than the other in aiding students’
productive knowledge of the target chunks.
RQ1b: Is either of the treatments (PPP or OHE) more effective than the other in terms of aiding students’ productive knowledge of the target forms?
At the beginning of the study, a hypothesis was posed
according to which
the PPP group would improve significantly
more in terms of their productive knowledge as it is argued that
productive learning facilitates productive knowledge (Griffin & Harley 1996; Waring 1997a). This hypothesis was rejected as far as
this group was concerned, since the independent samples t-test
demonstrated no significant differences between the groups as shown
in Table 4.
Gain
type
|
Gain
score PPP
|
Gain
score OHE
|
Sig
2 tailed
p-value
|
Gain
post-test pre-test
|
11.57143
|
12.0500
|
.818
|
Gain
delayed test-pre test
|
4.52381
|
7.7500
|
.086
|
Gain
delayed –post test
|
-7.57143
|
-4.30000
|
.124
|
Table 4: Statistical comparison of gain scores
between groups (productive test)
From the results in Table 4, it is evident that, at
least in the context of this study, the frameworks proved to be
equally effective. These
data are particularly interesting in the
light of Lewis’ assertions on how successful OHE is when compared
to PPP. In our study, this
appeared not to be the case, at least with
regard to the productive knowledge of chunks. Let us now turn to the
results concerning the students’ receptive knowledge of the target
forms.
RQ2a: Does explicit instruction (with the use of PPP or OHE) affect students’ receptive knowledge of chosen chunks necessary for stalling and circumlocution?
In order to answer RQ2a, the same procedure of analysing
the results was used for each of the groups. First, the raw scores
were reviewed. Next, a paired samples t-test was conducted to
establish statistical significance. Finally, an independent samples
t-test was used to compare the effectiveness of the frameworks. In
Table 5, the mean scores obtained on the receptive test in each group
are shown.
Type
of test
|
Number
of participants
|
Mean
score
PPP
|
Mean
score
OHE
|
Standard
deviation
PPP
|
Standard
deviation
OHE
|
Pre-test
|
21
|
8.9000
|
8.6500
|
1.71372
|
1.42441
|
Post
–test
|
21
|
11.2000
|
10.9000
|
.89443
|
1.77408
|
Delayed
test
|
21
|
10.3000
|
10.4000
|
1.55935
|
1.04630
|
Table 4: Mean scores obtained on
receptive test in PPP and OHE group
It is noticeable that all students had receptive
knowledge of more than half of the target chunks prior to the
treatment. However, in both groups students’ knowledge increased
considerably after the instruction. Even though the raw scores
suggest that the instruction had both an immediate and sustained
effect, it was necessary to discover whether the gain scores were
statistically significant. In Table 6, these results are shown.
Gain
scores
|
Mean
gain
PPP
|
Sig.
(2-tailed) p-value
PPP
|
Mean
gain OHE
|
Sig.
(2-tailed) p-value
OHE
|
Pre-test-Post-test
|
2.30000
|
.000
|
2.25000
|
.000
|
Pre-test
– Delayed test
|
1.40000
|
.001
|
1.75000
|
.000
|
Post-test-Delayed
test
|
-.90000
|
.010
|
-.50000
|
0.17
|
Table 6: Gain scores and their
statistical significance in PPP and OHE group (receptive test)
As can be seen from Table 6, the
p-value indicates that both treatments had a significant effect on
the gain scores, both immediately after the instruction and after the
three week period, even though there was again some attrition between
the treatment and the delayed test. Therefore, even though the
students in both groups were receptively familiar with some of the
chunks prior to the treatment, our results demonstrate that both
types of instruction aided the acquisition of more chunks in the long
term. Since the aim of this investigation was the comparison of the
two frameworks in question, it was necessary to conduct an
independent samples t-test in order to answer RQ2b.
RQ2b: Is either of the treatments (PPP or OHE) more effective than the other in terms of aiding students’ receptive knowledge of the target forms?
Table 7 provides the independent samples t-test results
which allow us to assess whether in fact, one of the paradigms was
more successful than the other one in this context.
Gain
type
|
Gain
score PPP
|
Gain
score OHE
|
Sig
2 tailed
p-value
|
Gain
post-test pre-test
|
2.3000
|
2.2500
|
.917
|
Gain
delayed test-pre
Test
|
1.4000
|
1.7500
|
.496
|
Gain
delayed –post test
|
-.9000
|
-.5000
|
.402
|
Table 7: Statistical comparison of gain scores between groups (receptive test)
As is shown in Table 7, the
p-values indicate that both frameworks proved to be equally effective
in aiding receptive retention of the target forms, in this case
disproving the hypothesis that OHE students would be more successful
due to the type of instruction they received (Griffin & Harley
1996; Waring 1997a).
Overall, these results show that both treatments were
effective in helping learners to acquire the target chunks but that
neither of them was superior to the other in developing receptive or
productive knowledge of the target items.
5 Conclusion
Having reviewed the productive and receptive test
results, the following can be concluded. Both types of treatment had
an immediate and sustained effect on students’ productive and
receptive knowledge, which suggests, as we would expect, that
explicit teaching has an impact on students’ performance. The
question as to whether one framework was more effective than the
other in the context studied was answered negatively, since no
statistically significant difference between the treatment types was
found with regards to their effect on receptive or productive
knowledge. While we would seek to limit the extent to which we can
generalise the results because they are based on just one situated
study, we feel they provide interesting insights into the use of
input- and output-oriented activities in
the classroom which can inform the teaching of lexical chunks.
First, in the light of this study it would appear that
although Lewis presented OHE in opposition to PPP, these paradigms do
not appear to produce different results under test conditions.
Although this would need to be tested further and with larger sample
sizes in order to confirm it, we might suggest that the superiority
of OHE has been somewhat exaggerated and the criticisms
that PPP has received (Lewis 1993, 1997, Skehan 1996, Dellar 2013)
have not been entirely
justified. While PPP has been linked to the behaviourist theory
associated with Audiolingualism, and thus with mindless repetition
and habit formation, it can also be argued that drills and other
output activities can be a useful tool in ELT.
This may be particularly true with lexical chunks, which
have to be remembered as single items. Nation (1990: 44) claims that
five to sixteen or more repetitions are needed for a word to be
remembered, and drills and practice tasks may help with this
repetition in class.
It may also be the case that the difference between
these two frameworks is not
as extreme as it is sometimes presented. We might argue, for example,
that the practice stage
in PPP can resemble to a great extent the experiment
stage in OHE and that observing and noticing
language can also occur in the presentation stage of the cycle. The
view that PPP can involve students in cognitive processes is argued
by Ranta & Lyster (2007: 149), who draw a comparison between PPP
and Anderson’s (1982) three phase skill-building model where, at
each stage, students are consciously involved in the learning
process: from consciously striving to understand the form and meaning
through applying the knowledge into practice to eventual automatic
production. Therefore,
while it is not being proposed here that the production stage in the
lesson is the end point of acquisition, we would argue that actively
producing language can be a useful tool for learning. What
perhaps is missing from some descriptions of PPP is the idea of
encouraging observation and noticing of language, which we would hope
to develop in all learners. Whether we call this stage of a lesson
‘observe’ or ‘presentation’, we would suggest it should
include inductive contextualisation, observation and reflection in
regard to the language area being taught.
Finally, prior to the study it was assumed that PPP
would aid students’ productive knowledge more effectively and OHE
would produce better results in facilitating receptive ability.
However, this was not the case. Instead, our results have shown that
both frameworks were equally beneficial in developing receptive and
productive knowledge of the target items. This may mean that the choice a teacher makes in terms of using PPP or
OHE may be more dependent upon teaching and learning preferences rather than
upon any direct impact on acquisition of formulaic language. This is, of course, not something to be taken lightly: it is expected
that some learners will prefer a more reflective and receptive type
of approach as suggested by OHE while others may want
the chance to produce more language, as
suggested by PPP.
Appendix
Lesson procedures
in PPP and OHE
PPP
|
OHE
|
Presentation
1
Students work in pairs and choose the five most popular / useful
places on campus.
Students
share their ideas and we put them on the board.
2
The teacher shows pictures of places that would hopefully have
come up: the Information Centre, the library and the new gym.
3
Students need to think of and write up three topics of
conversations (one for each place), and the teacher elicits ideas.
4
Students complete a matching activity to pre-teach vocabulary.
5
Students listen to the recording and match the conversations with
the places in the pictures
6
Students answer comprehension questions
7
The teacher gives students the script with gaps, students listen
again and fill the gaps with the appropriate chunks.
8
Students need to decide what the functions of those chunks are.
9
The teacher elicits more chunks.
10
The teacher drills the chunks chorally and individually.
Practice
1
Students play a game in which they need to describe as many items
as possible using circumlocution, in three minutes
2
Students play a game in which they need to match and say out loud
stalling chunks. For example, one student puts down a “Let’s”
card and the student who puts down a card with “put it this way”
and says it out loud will get a point.
Production
1
Students need to choose another spot on campus and write a
dialogue similar to those listened to and present it to the class
(students will be able to choose from three topics or pick their
own).
2
Students choose the best one.
|
Observe
1
Students work in pairs and choose the five most popular / useful
places on campus.
Students
share their ideas and we put them on the blackboard.
2
The teacher shows pictures of places that would hopefully have
come up: the Information Centre, the library and the new gym.
3
Students need to think of and write up three topics of
conversations (one for each place), and the teacher elicits ideas.
4
Students complete a matching activity to pre-teach vocabulary.
5
Students listen to the recording and match the conversations with
the places in the pictures.
6
Students answer comprehension questions.
7
The SS need to put together the cut-up dialogues (the matching
point will always be a chunk).
Hypothesise
1
Students need to categorise the chunks.
2
Students are asked to put the chunks in two columns: expressions
that give the speaker more time to think and expressions used for
describing things / situations.
In
pairs, students decide the following:
-
Which expressions they feel comfortable using.
-
Which they think they’ll never use and why.
-
Why they like/dislike certain expressions.
Experiment
1
Students work in groups of four, read a text out loud, and the
rest of the class need to listen carefully. The text will be read
out twice. The second time, there will be errors in the target
chunks, and whoever spots the mistake and calls out the exact word
used in the original will get a point.
2
Students play a game of domino, matching the phrases.
3
Students arrange the cut-up phrases (jigsaw exercise).
|
References
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the
phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent
word-combinations. In: Cowie, A. P. (Ed.). Phraseology:
Theory, analysis and applications.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–122.
Altenberg,
B. & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (1990). Phraseology in Spoken English:
Presentation of a Project. In: Aarts, J. & Meijs, W. (Eds.).
Theory and Practice in
Corpus Linguistics.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1–26.
Anderson,
J. (1982). Acquisition of Cognitive Skill. In: Psychological
Review, 89(4), 369-406.
Aston,
G. (2001) (Ed.) Learning
with Corpora. Bologna:
Athelstan.
Boers,
F. & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and intervention
studies on formulaic sequences in a second language. In: Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics,
32, 83-110.
Byrne,
D. (1986). Teaching Oral
English. Harlow Longman.
Chomsky,
N. (1966). Topics in the
Theory of Generative Grammar.
The Hague-Paris: Mouton and Co.
Chomsky,
N. (1975). Reflections on
Language. New York:
Pantheon.
Clennell,
C. (1999). Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills
with EAP classes. In: ELT
Journal. 53 (2), 83-91.
Council
of Europe. (2001). Common
European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning, Teaching,
Assessment. (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre_en.asp;
15.09.2013)
Dellar,
H. (2013). Twenty things in twenty years part seven: Input is more
important than output.
(https://hughdellar.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/twenty-things-in-twenty-years-part-seven-input-is-more-important-than-output/;
13.09.2013).
Dörnyei,
Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies In:
TESOL Quarterly. 29
(1), 55-85.
Dornyei,
Z. (2007). Research Methods
in Applied Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei,
Z. & Thurrell, S. (1992). Conversation
and Dialogues in Action.
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Erman,
B. & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice
principle. In: Text.
20 (1), 29–62.
Fillmore,
C. J. (1979). On fluency. In: Fillmore, C.J., Kempler D. & Wang
W.S.Y. (Eds.). Individual
differences in language ability and language behaviour.
New York: Academic Press, 85-101.
Firth,
J.R. (1935) The Technique of Semantics. Transactions of the
Philological Society. In: J.R Firth, (1957) Papers
in Linguistics, London:
Oxford University Press, pp.7-33
Foster,
P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the
task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In:
Bygate M., Skehan P. & Swain, M. (Eds.). Researching
pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing.
Harlow: Longman, 75-93.
Gabrielatos,
C. (1994). Minding our Ps. In: Current
Issues. 3, 5-8.
Griffin, G.F. & Harley, T.A. (1996). List learning of second language vocabulary. In:
Applied
Psycholinguistics.
17, 433-460.
Halenko, N. & Jones, C. (2011)
Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP
learners in the UK. Is explicit instruction effective? In: System
39 (1), pp.240-250.
Halliday,
M.A.K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17.
Hasan,
R. (1987). The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar.
In: Halliday, M.A.K. & Fawcett, R.P. (Eds.). New
developments in system linguistics. .Amsterdam:
Frances Pinter Publishers.
Hymes,
D. (1962) The Ethnography of speaking. In: Gladwin, T. & Sturtevant, W.C. (Eds.) Anthropology
and human behaviour.
Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington 5, 13-53.
Hymes,
D.H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In: Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J. (Eds.). Sociolinguistics.
Selected Readings.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293. In: M.A.K Halliday and J. Webster
(2002) On Grammar (Collected
Works ofJackson,
J. H. (1958). Selected
Writings, Vol. II (Taylor,
J. ed.). Basic Books, New York.
Jarvis,
H. & Stakounis, H. (2010). Speaking in Social Contexts: Issues
for Pre-sessional EAP Students. In: The
Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language,
14 (3),1-14.
(http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ912067.pdf; 13.09.2013).
Kasper,
G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage
pragmatics. In: Studies in
Second Language Acquisition,
18 (21), 49-69.
Kasper,
G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In: Rose,
K. & Kasper, G. Pragmatics
in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kjellmer,
G. (1994). A dictionary of English collocations based on the Brown
Corpus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Krashen,
S.D. & Terrel, T. (1983).
The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Lewis,
M. (1993). The lexical
approach: The state of ELT and a way forward.
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis,
M. (1997). Implementing the
lexical approach: Putting theory into practice.
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis,
M. (2000). Teaching
collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach.
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Nation,
I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and
Learning Vocabulary.
Newbury House: New York.
Nattinger,
J. (1980). A lexical phrase-grammar for ESL. In: TESOL
quarterly. 14 (3), 337-344.
Nattinger,
J. (1986). Lexical phrases, functions and vocabulary acquisition. In:
The ORTESOL Journal. 7,
1-14.
Nattinger,
J. & DeCarrico, J. (1989). Lexical Phrases, Speech Acts and
Teaching Conversation. In: Nation, P. & Carter, R. (Eds.).
Vocabulary Acquisition Aila
review-revue de l'aila, 6,
118-139.
Nattinger,
J. & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical
phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Pawley,
A. & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory:
Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In: Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R.W. (Eds.). Language
and communication. London:
Longman, 191-226.
Ranta,
L. &a Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving
immersion students’ oral language abilities: The
awareness-practice-feedback sequence . In: DeKeyser, R.M. (Ed.)
(2007). Practice in a Second
Language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive
Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,141-160.
Renouf,
A. & Sinclair, J. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English.
In: Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. (Eds.). English
Corpus Linguistics: Studies in the Honour of Jan Svartvik.
Longman, London, 128-143.
Schmidt,
R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. In:
Applied Linguistics,
11, 129-158.
Schmitt,
N. (2000). Vocabulary in
Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair,
J. (1991). Corpus,
concordance, collocation:
Describing English language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair,
J. (1996). The search for units of meaning. In: Textus:
English Studies in Italy,
9, 75-106.
Sinclair,
J. M. & Renouf, A. (Eds.) (1988). A lexical syllabus for language
learning. In: Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). Vocabulary
and language teaching.
Harlow: Longman, 140-158.
Skehan,
P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based
Instruction. In: Applied
Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Stubbs,
M. (2001). Words and
Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics.
Oxford, Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.
Waring,
R. (1997a). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary
sizes of some second language learners. In: Immaculata,
1, 53-68.
Willis,
D. (1990). The lexical
syllabus: A new approach to language learning.
London: Collins ELT.
Wood,
D. (2001). In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it?.
In: Canadian Modern Language
Review. 57, 573–589.
Wood,
D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second
language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. In:
Canadian Modern Language
Review. 63, 13–33.
Wood,
D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on
fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. In:
Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics. 12 (1), 39-57.
Wray,
A. (2005). Formulaic
Language and the Lexicon.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Authors:
Patrycja
Golebiewska
Associate Lecturer in
Spanish
School of
Language, Literature and International StudiesPreston
PR1 2HE
University
of Central Lancashire
UK
Christian Jones
Senior Lecturer in
TESOL
University of Central
Lancashire, UK
School of
Language, Literature and International StudiesPreston
PR1 2HE
University
of Central Lancashire
UK