Learners’ attitude: Hands-on Activities

enhance my memory for English vocabulary.

10 I think learning vocabulary with the use of corpus-based paper-printed

concordance is suitable for me.

0 13

11 I think using corpus-based

paper-printed concordances to learn vocabulary in English class waste time.

7

12 I feel anxious when I learn vocabulary through data-driven learning approach.

2

13 In general, I feel satisfied with the experience of learning English vocabulary in a corpus-based learning environment. In that, I like the way

4.2.2.2 Learners’ attitude: Hands-on Activities

The feedback of learning motivation, learning experience and materials was shown in Table 4.5. In Table 4.5, it is clear that learners’ motivation was greatly enhanced, students understood the words and sentences in the teaching materials, and most importantly, they liked to discuss and discover the vocabulary rules and patterns with teammates.

Next, the questions in Table 4.6 will be discussed in details. Since the supporting literature of some results has been cited above, the researcher only discusses the new ones in order to avoid repeating the literature.

‧

Table 4.6 Results of Learners’ Feedback on Language Learning Value (N=39) Factor 2: Language learning Numabers of participant and frequency of

responses M SD

No. Item Description SA A D SD

14 I think doing vocabulary exercises through paper-printed concordance are more interesting than doing identical exercises of traditional teaching on textbooks.

15 I think doing vocabulary exercises through corpus-based paper-printed concordances would distract me from English words.

16 After using data-driven learning to learn English vocabulary, in the future, I would like to do other similar corpus activities in class, such as grammar learning or English writing training.

1

17 I can understand the vocabulary on the course material (paper-printed

18 I can understand the sentence pattern on the course material (paper-printed concordance) in English class. enough to provide sufficient English examples for learners.

20 In data-driven learning activity, I feel it is great for finding vocabulary rules patterns with teammates cooperatively.

2

21 In data-driven learning activity, I have a sense of achievement finding

vocabulary rules and patterns with

3

‧

teammates cooperatively.

22 In data-driven learning activity, I can learn a lot of English vocabulary rules and patterns from other peers who have high proficiency in English.

4 computer rather than through prepared paper-based exercises.

According to Table 4.5, 66.7% of the participants responded positively that doing vocabulary exercises through paper-printed concordance are more interesting than doing identical exercises of traditional teaching on textbooks. 38.4% learners expressed that doing vocabulary exercises through corpus-based paper-printed

concordances would distract themselves from learning English words. In that, the rest of 61.5% learners thought they can focus on the English words through this activity.

One explanation for this is that learners have dynamic experience when they learn vocabulary within the expansive contexts, so they are more concentrated on learning the lexical chunks entailing words, grammars, discourse as well as pragmatic

conventions that shape the use of lexis (Tribble and Jones, 1990; D. Willis, 1990;

Lewis, 1993; J. Willis, 1998; O’Keefe et al., 2007). However, only 43.6 % of the participants were willing to use data-driven approach in other corpus-based activities, such as grammar learning or English writing.

When asked about participants’ feedback on corpus-based concordance teaching materials, most of the participants agreed that they can understand the vocabulary (66.6%) and sentence patterns (56.4%) in the course material.

Furthermore, 82.1% of the participants strongly agreed that the English examples in

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

64

teaching materials are enough for them.

Items 20 to 22 dealt with participants’ feedback on cooperative and collaborative learning experience. In item 20, there were more than half of the

participants (56.4%) agreed that they felt great when they found vocabulary rules and patterns with teammates cooperatively. Meanwhile, in item 21 there were also more than half of the participants (56.4%) agreed that they have a sense of achievement finding vocabulary rules and patterns with peers. Compared to the item 7, only 33.3%

of the participants felt that they have a sense of achievement when they did

corpus-based activity by themselves. In Item 22, over 66% of the participants believed that they learned a lot of English words and patterns from high achievers. The results indicated two important findings from the cooperative and collaborative learning. One is that participants felt they not only have a great feeling, but also a sense of

achievement when learning English words with teammates. The other is that participants felt they could learn vocabulary knowledge from other high achievers classmates. According to Dörnyei and Murphey (2003), they listed ‘learning about each other’ as one of the elements which could motivate students’ learning. They also point out that ‘learning about each other’ is the crucial element for improving the relationship among group member. In the same study (2003), they claimed that cooperation toward common goals is the most effective method to motivate students.

Haller, Gallagher, Weldon and Felder (2000) also proposed cooperative learning has positive effects on students’ interdependence, responsibility and accountability.

Through cooperative learning, the participants not only learned from each other, but also learned knowledge from each other.

Next, in item 23, approximately 40% (41.1%) of the participants agreed that they would like to explore corpus on computer rather than through prepared

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

65

paper-based exercises. The results showed some important findings which described in the following. First, the participants thought it is much fun when they search words through on-line corpus by themselves. Second, some participants who want to explore corpus on computer felt much more sense of participation and self-efficacy than doing paper-based exercises. Some thought it is convenient for them to use computer to collect information. Moreover, they believed that they could enhance their memory by doing actual manipulation. Third, some of them considered that examples and

sentence patterns are limited in paper-based exercise because of teachers’ selection.

The findings are in line with Supatronant’s (2005) study. Although the learning process on computer is complicated, the students felt satisfied with the end-result.

However, the majority of the participants (59%) did not like to explore corpus on computer. Instead, they liked to learn English vocabulary from prepared paper-based exercises. They thought it is easy and time-saving for them to use paper-based

exercises to learn English vocabulary and they can take notes on worksheets. Second, some participants liked to discuss with classmates through the paper-based exercise when they learn the words. Third, the minority of participants pointed out that when they use the computer to learn English words, they might be distracted by the Internet.

Fourthly, compared to participants who would like to explore corpus on computer, participants thought they felt a sense of security because of the limited vocabulary range. In paper-based exercises, the lists of words were selected by the teacher in advance. Additionally, participants expressed that they were accustomed to learning vocabulary through paper-printed materials. They felt it was ineffective to their study if the teaching material was replaced with the on-line corpus.

In sum, learning English vocabulary through paper-printed concordance was effective. The majority of participants perceived that doing vocabulary exercises

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

66

through paper-printed concordance are more interesting than doing identical exercises of traditional teaching on textbooks (M= 2.69, SD= .52). They felt fewer distractions when they learn vocabulary through paper-printed concordance (M= 2.61, SD= .67).

However, slightly more learners considered that they would like to do other similar corpus activities in class, such as grammar learning or English writing training (M=

2.41, SD=.64). Few participants would like to explore corpus on computer (M= 2.30, SD= .73). When asked the course material, over half of the participants expressed that they can understand not only vocabulary (M= 2.72, SD= .56) but also sentence

patterns (M= 2.59, SD= .55). In addition, a lot of participants disagreed the statement

‘English examples are insufficient to them on the course material (M= 2.90, SD= .60).’

They thought the examples in course material were enough for them to find the vocabulary patterns. To the collaborative and cooperative learning aspect, participants felt the atmosphere was great (M= 2.59, SD= .64). They had a sense of achievement (M= 2.63, SD= .63) when they studied vocabulary with teammates. Through group discussion, they claimed that they can learn more vocabulary knowledge from high achievers (M= 2.74, SD= .68).