Effects of DDL Approach on English Productive & Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Ability

doi:10.18627/jslg.35.3.201911.341

All Issue

2019 Vol.35, Issue 3 Preview Page Next Page

Research Article

Effects of DDL Approach on English Productive & Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Ability DDL이 영어 생산적 및 수용적 어휘 지식과 읽기 능력에 미치는 효과 연구: 이상희, 김성희, 정양수
Lee, Sanghee, Kim, Sunghee and Jung, Yangsoo

30 November 2019. pp. 341-360

PDF

Abstract

The current study aims to compare the effects of a DDL approach with the effects of an explicit approach using concordances on the improvement of productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge and reading skills and to investigate the changes caused by the effects of the DDL approach over time. The study involved two groups of high school students from higher-level classes. According to the results of an independent t-test. DDL was more effective for productive vocabulary knowledge over the shorter term. In contrast, from the results of a dependent t-test, only DDL was effective for receptive vocabulary knowledge over shorter term, while both approaches were effective for longer-term productive vocabulary knowledge. Data analysis from a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that there was a statistically significant interaction effect between the two approaches and time. In addition, DDL was more significant for reading skills over a longer-term, and there was a correlation between vocabulary knowledge and reading ability. Implications for vocabulary instruction in DDL are discussed.

Keywords

DDL

receptive / productive vocabulary knowledge

repeated measures ANOVA

reading comprehension

References

박소연 ․ 윤현숙. 2009. 코퍼스를 활용한 영어 어휘 학습의 효과 연구. 『영어 영문학 연구』 51.3, 145-165.
이현진 ․ 이은주. 2010. 코퍼스를 기반으로 한 어휘 과제가 고등학생의 영어 어휘 학습과 태도에 미치는 영향. 『영어어문교육』 16.4, 239-265.
홍선이 ․ 오선영. 2008. 한국 고등학생들을 대상으로 한 코퍼스 기반 어휘 및 문법 학습의 효과. 『영어교육연구』 20.1, 261-283.
홍지윤 ․ 윤현숙. 2013. 코퍼스 활용 어휘 피드백에 따른 고등학교 학습자의 수준별 연어 지식 및 오류 교정 과정에 대한 분석. 『영어 영문학 연구』 55.1, 449-474.
Boulton, A. 2009. Data-driven learning: reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 35.1, 1-28.
Boulton, A. 2012. Hands-on / hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In J. Thomas and A. Boulton (eds.), Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 152-168.
Cobb, T. and A. Boulton. 2015. Classroom applications of corpus analysis. In D. Biber and R. Reppen (eds.), Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 478-497. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.027
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 2014. The use of corpus examples for language comprehension and production. ReCALL 26.2, 128-146. 10.1017/S0958344014000093
Gilquin, G. and S. Granger. 2010. How can DDL be used in language teaching? In A. O'Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London, UK: Routledge, 359-369.
Henriksen, B. 1999. Three dimension of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 303-317. 10.1017/S0272263199002089
Johns, T. 1991. Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal 4, 1-16.
Laufer, B. and Z. Goldstein. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning 54.3, 399-436. 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x
McCarten, J. 2007. Teaching vocabulary: Lessons from the corpus, lessons for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P. 1990. A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research 6.2, 150-154. 10.1177/026765839000600204
Melka, F. 1997. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 84-102.
Nation, P. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nesselhauf, N. 2004. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In J. Sinclair (ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 125-152. 10.1075/scl.12.11nes
Paribakht, S. and M. Wesche. 1997. Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady, and T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 174-200. 10.1017/CBO9781139524643.013/span>
Ryoo, Y. 2009. Effects of two types of vocabulary practice: Receptive and Productive. Foreign Language Education 16.1, 79-99.
Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt, and C. Clapham. 2001. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18, 55-88. 10.1177/026553220101800103
Sun, Y.-C. and L.-Y. Wang. 2003. Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16.1, 83-94. 10.1076/call.16.1.83.15528
Vyatkina, N. 2016. Data-driven learning of collocations: Learner performance, proficiency, and perceptions. Language Learning and Technology 20.3, 159-179.
Waring, R. 1997. A study of receptive and productive vocabulary learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature 21.1, 94-114.

Information

Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
Volume : 35
No :3
Pages :341-360
DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.35.3.201911.341

[1] 박소연 ․ 윤현숙. 2009. 코퍼스를 활용한 영어 어휘 학습의 효과 연구. 『영어 영문학 연구』 51.3, 145-165.

[2] 이현진 ․ 이은주. 2010. 코퍼스를 기반으로 한 어휘 과제가 고등학생의 영어 어휘 학습과 태도에 미치는 영향. 『영어어문교육』 16.4, 239-265.

[3] 홍선이 ․ 오선영. 2008. 한국 고등학생들을 대상으로 한 코퍼스 기반 어휘 및 문법 학습의 효과. 『영어교육연구』 20.1, 261-283.

[4] 홍지윤 ․ 윤현숙. 2013. 코퍼스 활용 어휘 피드백에 따른 고등학교 학습자의 수준별 연어 지식 및 오류 교정 과정에 대한 분석. 『영어 영문학 연구』 55.1, 449-474.

[5] Boulton, A. 2009. Data-driven learning: reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 35.1, 1-28.

[6] Boulton, A. 2012. Hands-on / hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In J. Thomas and A. Boulton (eds.), Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 152-168.

[7] Cobb, T. and A. Boulton. 2015. Classroom applications of corpus analysis. In D. Biber and R. Reppen (eds.), Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 478-497. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.027

[8] Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 2014. The use of corpus examples for language comprehension and production. ReCALL 26.2, 128-146. 10.1017/S0958344014000093

[9] Gilquin, G. and S. Granger. 2010. How can DDL be used in language teaching? In A. O'Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London, UK: Routledge, 359-369.

[10] Henriksen, B. 1999. Three dimension of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 303-317. 10.1017/S0272263199002089

[11] Johns, T. 1991. Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal 4, 1-16.

[12] Laufer, B. and Z. Goldstein. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning 54.3, 399-436. 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x

[13] McCarten, J. 2007. Teaching vocabulary: Lessons from the corpus, lessons for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[14] Meara, P. 1990. A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research 6.2, 150-154. 10.1177/026765839000600204

[15] Melka, F. 1997. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 84-102.

[16] Nation, P. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.

[17] Nesselhauf, N. 2004. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In J. Sinclair (ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 125-152. 10.1075/scl.12.11nes

[18] Paribakht, S. and M. Wesche. 1997. Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady, and T. Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 174-200. 10.1017/CBO9781139524643.013/span>

[19] Ryoo, Y. 2009. Effects of two types of vocabulary practice: Receptive and Productive. Foreign Language Education 16.1, 79-99.

[20] Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt, and C. Clapham. 2001. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18, 55-88. 10.1177/026553220101800103

[21] Sun, Y.-C. and L.-Y. Wang. 2003. Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16.1, 83-94. 10.1076/call.16.1.83.15528

[22] Vyatkina, N. 2016. Data-driven learning of collocations: Learner performance, proficiency, and perceptions. Language Learning and Technology 20.3, 159-179.

[23] Waring, R. 1997. A study of receptive and productive vocabulary learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature 21.1, 94-114.

The Journal of Studies in Language ISSN:1225-4770(Print) 2671-6151(Online) 언어연구

All Issue