Sam Hilliard Frank O’Shea Mary Andrews Self February 11 th , 2012

1. Explicit Circumlocution Instruction and its Effects on Vocabulary Learning and Retention in Novice Spanish Learners Sam Hilliard Frank O’Shea Mary Andrews Self February 11th, 2012 Hilliard.sam@gmail.com frankeoshea@gmail.com selfma@email.sc.edu

2. Table of Contents • Introduction • Review of Literature • The Current Study • Results • Discussion • Limitations • Future Research • References

3. Introduction • ACTFL & Advanced-Low rating • Proficiency-oriented approach • Circumlocution • “Use of L2 to describe an item missing from one’s lexicon” • Vocabulary

4. Communication Strategies and FL Learning • Explicit Instruction and Subsequent Use • Is teachable and can improve communicative skills (Dörnyei, 1995) • Possible in beginner levels (Berry-Bravo, 1993; Ceo-DiFrancesco, 2003) • Can lead to deeper processing (Dörnyei, 1995; Salamone & Marsal, 1997; Weyers, 2010)

5. Communication Strategies and FL Learning • Intermediate-High vs. Advanced-Low (ACTFL) • L1-based vs. L2-based strategies (Liskin-Gasparro, 1996) • Breakdown in Communication (Berry-Bravo, 1993; Brooks, 2004) • Repair strategies in L1 • Vocabulary learning = crucial

6. Communication and Vocabulary Acquisition • Incorporating communication strategies into instruction (Berry-Bravo, 1993) • All levels of college Spanish classes • Passive vs. Active Vocabulary Learning • No data for communicative achievement or vocabulary acquisition

7. Vocabulary Acquisition • de la Fuente (2001) • Negotiation of input + output = promotes productive acquisition • Hulstijn & Laufer (2001) • L2 vocabulary retention = time and effort • Sanaoui (1992; 1995); Kojic-Sabo & Lightbrown(1999) • Learner strategies directly related to learner outcomes • Quality > Quantity of strategies

8. Vocabulary Acquisition • Morin (2006) • Explicit strategy instruction (vocabulary) can be easily incorporated into “normal L2 classroom activities” with “apparently immediate benefits, even among lower-proficiency learners” (p. 180) • Laufer (2006) Focus on form vs. formS • Push learners, notice, and modify

9. The Current Study • Prior studies regarding circumlocution: • Investigated the effects on oral proficiency, but not on the potential benefits for vocabulary learning • Hypothesis: • Circumlocution can be used to push students’ output and deeper lexical processing of new vocabulary items, thereby leading to better productive learning by students.

10. The Current Study Research Questions: • How—if at all—does explicit circumlocution training affect the learning of second language vocabulary? • How—if at all—does explicit circumlocution training effect the retention of second language vocabulary?

11. Pilot Study • Chose existing unit from SPAN 121 syllabus dealing with house vocabulary • Administered vocabulary test of 30 words (matching format) to a SPAN 121 section different from experimental and control

12. Target Words • la secadora= clothes dryer • la almohada= pillow • la olla = cooking pot • el colchón= mattress • el botiquín= medicine cabinet

13. Participants • N=77 • Original number = 81(attrition) • Four classes of Spanish 121 at USC • Researcher A and Researcher B each taught one control and one experimental group

14. Supplemental Vocabulary Handout

15. Method

18. Results Raw scores MANOVA for Between-Subjects effects

19. Graph of raw scores

20. Table 4 Results of individual one-way ANOVA *p < .05

21. Summary of results • Overall, the type of instruction tended towards an effect, but is stat. insignificant (p=.067) • Gains for both groups on posttest (learning) • Experimental (circumlocution) group • Higher retention (less attrition), significant (p=.047)

22. Discussion • Why similar levels of learning? • Intentional learning tasks (Laufer, 2006) • Form (comm.) vs. formS (words as objects of study) practice • Both groups pushed to notice words on some level (Schmidt, 1990) • Supp. Vocab sheet

23. Discussion • Why higher retention for exp. Group? • Circumlocution/Communication Strategies and deeper processing (Weyers, 2010; Nakatani, 2005) • Analyze interlanguage (Dörnyei, 1995) • Forced output and circumlocution • (de la Fuente, 2001; Swain, 1995) • Semantic associations and retention (Morin & Goebel, 2001; Morin, 2006) • Processing time and retention (Hulstijn et. al., 2001)

24. Limitations • Task-dependent memory (Barcroft, 2000; Webb, 2009) • Study outside of class? • Frequency of words

25. Future research • Control for study outside of class • Longitudinal study • More treatments • More participants

26. References Barcroft, J. (2004). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Lexical Input Approach. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2): 200-208. Berry-Bravo, J. (1993). Teaching the Art of Circumlocution. Hispania, 76(2): 371-377. Ceo-DiFrancesco, D. (2003). Strategies in the Oral Production of Beginning Spanish Learners. Hispania, 86(1): 121-132. de la Fuente, M. J. (2001). Negotiation and Oral Acquisiton of L2 Vocabulary: The Roles of Input and Output in the Receptive and Productive Acquisition of Words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1): 81-112. Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the Teachability of Communication Strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1)55-85. Hulstijn, J. and Laufer, B. (2001). Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3): 539-558 Hummel, K. (2010). Translation and Short-Term L2 vocabulary retention: Hindrance or Help? Language Teaching Research, 14(1): 61-74. Kojic-Sabo, I., and P.M. Lightbrown. (1999). Students' Approaches to Vocabulary Learning and Their Relationship to Success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2): 176-192 Laufer, B. (2006). "Comparing Focus on Form and forcus on FormS in Second-Language Vocabulary Learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1): 148-166. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1996). Circumlocution, Communication Strategies, and The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: An Analysis of Student Discourse. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3): 317-330. Morin, R. (2006). Building Depth of L2 Vocabulary By Building and Using Word Families. Hispania, 89(1): 170-182. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The Effects of Awareness-Raising Training on Oral Communication Strategy Use. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1): 76-91. Salomone, A.M. and Marsal, F. (1997). How to Avoid Language Breakdown? Circumlocution! Foreign Language Annals, 30(4): 473-484. Sanaoui, R (1992). Vocabulary learning and teaching in French as a second language classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto, OISE. Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (1), 158-164. Webb, S. (2009). The Effects of Receptive and Productive Learning of Word Pairs on Vocabulary Knowledge. RELC Journal, 40(3): 360-376. Weyers, J. (2010). Speaking Strategies: Meeting NCATE Oral Proficiency Standards. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 384-394.

27. Questions? Hilliard.sam@gmail.com frankeoshea@gmail.com selfma@email.sc.edu