Phonological Awareness Training

Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, Vol.17, No.1 (Mar. 2004) 59~90 NATIONAL TAIPEI TEACHERS COLLEGE

59

The Effects of Phonological Awareness Training on Technological University Students’ Phonics and Vocabulary Knowledge Chin-cheng Huang, Shiou-jy Lin, & Brenda S. C. Su *

ABSTRACT Phonological awareness (PA) training has long been regarded as one of the most important instructional elements for early education due to its critical role in learning to read an alphabetic language. For decades, remedial programs in PA training have been implemented to help reading disabled children, yet little research has been reported for adult learners, especially students at technological university level. The present study investigated the influence of PA training on phonics and vocabulary knowledge for technological university students. A total of 272 university freshmen participated in this study, with 133 of them in the experimental group and 139 in the control group. Each subject was requested to fill out a questionnaire, orally read the El Paso Phonics Survey, and took the Vocabulary Level Test. Students in the experimental group were offered a one-semester supplementary PA training focused on letter-sound correspondence, phonemic awareness, syllable awareness, phonogram identification, and phonetic symbols. The results showed that PA training could effectively improve subjects’ letter-sound correspondence and significantly increase their vocabulary knowledge. Since the majority of freshmen at technological university level had acquired very limited pronunciation knowledge before they were enrolled, it is suggested that English instructors should offer PA training to help students develop vocabulary knowledge.

*

Chin-cheng Huang: Assistant Professor, Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology Shiou-jy Lin: Instructor, Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology Brenda S. C. Su: Instructor, Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology

60

Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, Vol.17, No.1

Key words: phonological awareness, vocabulary knowledge, phonics, technological university students

Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, Vol.17, No.1 (Mar. 2004) 59~90 NATIONAL TAIPEI TEACHERS COLLEGE

61

The Effects of Phonological Awareness Training on Technological University Students’ Phonics and Vocabulary Knowledge Chin-cheng Huang, Shiou-jy Lin, & Brenda S. C. Su *

INTRODUCTION Phonological awareness is the awareness of and the ability to manipulate the sound structure of language. For example, learners are supposed to have the ability to segment the word into onset (st in ‘stop’) and rhyme (op in ‘stop’), and to combine st and op to make up the word ‘stop’. In this study, phonological awareness (PA) will be viewed in a broad sense by offering instructions of phonics, phonemic awareness, syllable awareness, and phonogram identification. Many researchers have asserted that PA capacity is essential for the development of early reading (Adams, 1990; de Jong & der Leij, 2002; Liberman, 1982; Mann, 1986; Mann & Brady, 1988; Muter & Diethelm, 2001; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987) and word learning (Treiman, 1991; Gathercole et al., 1997; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990). Therefore, PA training is regarded as one of the most important instructional elements for early language education. For example, before native English-speaking children learn to read, they are normally equipped with thousands of words learned by listening and speaking. Nevertheless, many educators still put great emphasis on PA. Syllabuses based on phonics teaching and phonemic awareness instruction are designed and implemented for kindergarten children and first graders. In addition, similar remedial programs are implemented to help reading-disabled (i.e. dyslexic) children. Thus, PA has become one of the most important research topics. Moreover, evidence that shows PA training can help equip

*

Chin-cheng Huang: Assistant Professor, Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology Shiou-jy Lin: Instructor, Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology Brenda S. C. Su: Instructor, Department of Modern Languages, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology

62


children with the ability to decode words correctly and to improve reading has been reported by such writers as Ball and Blachman (1988), Bradley and Bryant (1983), MacDonald and Cornwall (1995), and Treiman and Baron (1983). On the whole, the booming practice of PA instruction is indispensable to early education for L1 learners. Since English in Taiwan is learned in an EFL setting, before students learn to read English, they have few or limited spoken words in mind, and students have rarely or never been trained in PA, most students find learning English very difficult and dull. With the help of their teachers and K. K. (Kenyon & Knott) phonetic symbols, students are required to memorize new vocabulary before and after reading. Since Chinese, a logographic language, tends to be more meaning-based, the words are mostly recognized by form and meaning instead of sound. Therefore, similar learning habits may subconsciously be transferred to second language learning. These confirms Chen and Yau (1989) and Hsieh’s (1999) Studies that when Chinese students learn a new English word, they often emphasize the spelling and meaning of the word but ignores its sound and, consequently, are not familiar with how to detect and guess the sounds and syllables of the new words. Memorizing unknown words thus becomes a nightmare for them; especially, words with multiple syllables. Since their reading is frequently interrupted to look up words in a dictionary for meanings and pronunciations, they either find reading a tough task or just give up reading altogether. Phonological awareness is not spontaneous and thus needs to be formally taught. Theoretically, the process of word learning and reading for native English-speaking and EFL learners should be similar (Schmitt, 2000). If the native speakers who are already familiar with the spoken language still need their PA to be reinforced by specific PA training, there is no reason why foreign language learners with their very limited command of English should be expected to leave out this step.

The Links between PA, Word Knowledge and Reading Kavanagh and Mattingly (1972) pointed out that psycho-acoustic studies have shown that speech code is multidimensional and speech and print cues carry different levels of linguistic information. The language cues for speaking-listening are largely phonetic; and the orthographic-reading cues involve mainly abstract phonological processing in addition to the print cues. Mattingly (1984) in his later work further

The Effects of Phonological Awareness Training on Technological University Students' Phonics and Vocabulary Knowledge

63

states that metalinguistic awareness is not so much a matter of consciousness but of access. Before children can spell or recognize words, they have to realize that words consist of sounds (Adams, 1990). Phonics and phonemic awareness, regarded as stepping-stones of PA, thus play a critical role in learning to read an alphabetical writing system such as English. Longitudinal studies repeatedly show that both of phonics instruction and phonemic awareness are reliable predictors of spelling achievement and subsequent reading achievement in both first and second graders (Byrne et al., 1972; Juel et al., 1986; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995). Deficiencies in this knowledge are a hallmark of children who read poorly and also characterize adults with reading problems (Liberman et al., 1985; Pratt & Brady, 1988). Reading, in a broader sense, depends on the integrity of certain written and spoken language skills. A fluent reader must be sensitive to the phonological as well as the lexical parts of a text passage. Among many studies related to PA, most of them emphasized the effects of PA on first language early reading (Adams, 1990; Liberman, 1982; Mann, 1986; Mann & Brady, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987) and word acquisition (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990; Gathercole et al., 1997; Treiman, 1991). Because of their abstraction, it is not surprising that poor readers need substantial support to gain control of grapheme/phoneme correspondence, and the structural elements of words. For example, the recognition of onsets and rhymes, the spelling patterns of common rhymes (phonograms) and high utility rhymes such as -ake, -at, -ice, and others, all have significant influence on word identification. Phonological awareness seems to be especially linked to the ability to pronounce new words. According to Treiman (1991), when children read new words, they use two routes, or methods, to pronounce them. The first route involves using memorized associations between familiar printed words (sight words) and their pronunciations. The second route involves “sounding out” the word by constructing a pronunciation from the word’s printed form. Thus, native children employ both known word parts and phonemic awareness to decode unknown words. Further, learning vocabulary involves the linkage between sound patterns and the meanings of individual words, and phonological memory may improve new word acquisition. Children who have better segmental ability of phonological codes may be better able to transfer the phonological structure of already known words or patterns to decoding unknown words. Thus, the

64


more phonological codes a student possesses, the easier it is for him/her to undertake new word learning. However, for many EFL students in Taiwan, they might have a certain amount of vocabulary size of “sight words” without much sensitivity to the phonological codes of these words. In general, they seldom “sound out” words due to the conflicts with their first language learning habits as mentioned above. For example, few students in Taiwan have been trained for or equipped with the phonemic awareness or phonics that is common in native English speakers. As a result, when they read, they depend more on logographic cue reading than phonetic cue reading thus become either poor or unconfident readers due to being unable to read aloud. In other words, Taiwanese students are often unable to detect sound differences that may change meaning when they read. They read a passage silently, guessing the meaning, yet failing to enjoy the linguistic aspects of the language, including the correct pronunciation of words, pleasant intonation and graceful rhymes. Based on this learning strategy, students lose their motivation for learning the target language and for understanding the text. Therefore, phonological awareness is an important aspect of enhancing vocabulary knowledge, and thus of reading improvement as a whole.

The Need for PA Training Tunmer and Herriman (1984), and Tunmer, Herriman and Nesdale (1988) have suggested that PA develops separately from, and later than, basic speaking and listening skills. Consistent with this claim is Shankweiler and Crain’s (1986) argument that “explicit conscious awareness of phonemic structure depends on metalinguistic abilities that do not come free with the acquisition of language” (p.142). Tunmer and Rohl (1991) have proposed that metalinguistic development is related to metacognitive control over the information-processing system. They point out that “this linkage of metalinguistic development to metacognitive development would help to explain why the ability to treat language as an object of thought is not an automatic consequence of language acquisition” (p.2). Instead, it requires control processing after being instructed. Moreover, the encouraging results reported by Treiman and Baron (1983), Bradley and Bryant (1983), Ball and Blachman (1988), and Lundberg, Frost and Peterson (1988) all show that PA training can improve reading and equip children with


65

the ability to decode words. These studies strongly support the idea that PA training facilitates learning to read. Although reading may in turn foster PA, it is helpful and perhaps necessary to learn the system of relationships between printed and spoken words before students become familiar with phonological codes. Therefore, we strongly suggest that, regardless of whether native children need their early literacy education to be reinforced with phonological training, foreign language learners with insufficient ability at word recognition should be provided with phonological training.

The Implications of PA on Vocabulary Acquisition for Adult EFL Students In Taiwan, students at the technological university level are supposed to be involved in extensive readings related to their specific fields since frequently more than half of their information is acquired from journals, textbooks, or Internet sites written in English. Thus, they need a large existing vocabulary if they are to learn by reading foreign texts. For many students, the greater part of their vocabulary is acquired through reading and writing. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of them have problems in recognizing words by ear or orally producing the words they already know in graphic form. For examples, students may be not only confused by the sound-letter correspondence of words such as cough, through, dough, though, and bough, but also uncertain of those words which have the same spellings but are phonologically distinguished solely by stress such as `permit/per`mit, `project/pro`ject. Students who want to be proficient in the spoken language need to be aware of these phonological distinctions. Although learning to read involves recognizing and using multiple sources of information, in alphabetic languages, such as English, no source is more important than the relationships of letters to sounds (Adams, l990). Hence, phonics instruction as well as phonemic awareness instruction may serve to make a positive difference in long-term reading achievement (Adams, 1990; Bryne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991; Ehri & Robbins, 1992). This is especially true for Taiwanese students. From our teaching experience, most students are not confident enough to make any utterance or even to pronounce vocabulary words aloud in class. What makes them afraid to learn new vocabulary is that they have only the vague idea of how sounds, letters, and words are related. In other words, that learning to pronounce a word well may facilitate their memorizing of that word and, furthermore, that knowing how to

66


pronounce a word or group of words in context may also help them to visualize the probable spelling of new words correctly. Once this threshold of understanding has been passed, we believe that students will cease to find memorizing new words a hard or impossible task, but that rather they will find reading enjoyable and relatively easy to accomplish.

Research Question In our prior study (Lin et al., 2001), 95% of the ESP students at technological university level reported that correct phonological skills could help them develop their vocabulary size. It implies that PA might be beneficial to ESP students’ word acquisition. Although many strategies have been developed to improve reading ability and word recognition, for a further look at the influence of PA on reading, the present study focused on the relationship between PA training and vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, the research question addressed in this study is: Does phonological awareness training affect students’ vocabulary acquisition at technological university level?

METHODOLOGY Subjects A total of 272 subjects were selected from a technological university in southern Taiwan. Most of them (n = 212, 77.94 %) were vocational high school graduates, while the rest (n = 60, 22.06%) were high school graduates. They claimed not to have had any PA training before the current research. According to the students’ placement test held at the beginning of the first semester, the subjects in the Freshman English (Basic English) program were divided into three different levels. In this study, two classes from each level were randomly selected. The available sample of subjects from the six classes was 272. The distribution of the subjects is school-wide from different colleges, with respective numbers as shown in Table 1.


Table 1

67

The Distribution of Subjects

Colleges College of Agriculture College of Engineering College of Management College of Humanities and Social Science Total

Subjects 142 46 72 12 272

Percentage 52.21 16.91 26.47 4.41 100.00

Instruments The instruments adopted in this study were: (1) a questionnaire (Appendix A), (2) El Paso Phonics Survey (Ekwall, 1979) (Appendix B) and (3) the Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) (Appendix C). The questionnaire was provided to discover students’ difficulties in English learning and their previous learning habits related to vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation skills. The VLT, originally designed by Nation (1990), was revised based on Huang’s Vocabulary Level Test (2000). However, in this study, the researchers selected some vocabularies from the 1,000-word, the 2,000-word, the 3,000-word and the 5,000-word levels; the definitions of the words in the test were translated into Chinese due to the limited vocabulary knowledge of the subjects. The El Paso Phonics Survey, consisting of two parts: consonants and vowels, was also utilized to evaluate students’ PA.

Treatment In view of the theory that drawing learners’ attention to the PA can enhance or facilitate both first language and second language learners’ word knowledge, the researchers proposed supplementary classroom activities that aimed to raise learners’ PA and serve as an additional source for vocabulary acquisition. The survey was conducted some weeks later when students had adapted to their new learning environment. Immediately after the mid-term exam, one of the two classes at each of the three levels according to the placement test was randomly selected as the experimental group to receive the PA supplementary training. In total, 3 out of 6 classes were assigned to the experimental group, and the rest to the control

68


group. Each researcher was responsible for conducting one experimental class and one control class respectively. Because teachers of the Freshman English course were expected to follow the unified syllabus targeted for the unified final exam, both groups used the same textbooks. In other words, in the experimental group, PA training was not a separate program but rather was integrated with various other approaches to vocabulary teaching and learning. The experiment was set up to measure the potential benefits of PA on vocabulary knowledge and its by-products such as correct spelling and pronunciation. This approach was not meant to replace other established vocabulary-learning methods, but rather was used as a supplementary technique. Under the restraint of the unified syllabus and final examination, the available time that the researchers could feasibly allot to PA training to the experimental group was approximately 10 minutes within each teaching period. The subjects in the control group learned at the normal pace according to the unified syllabus. All subjects received similar course-related homework; however, no extra PA homework was assigned to experimental classes.

Since the students were adult learners, the

researchers only pointed out and practiced the parts that students feel weak. During the experimental period, knowledge of manipulating sound structure was introduced such as letter-sound correspondence, phonemic awareness, syllable segmentation and combination for multi-syllabic words, phonogram identification, and phonetic symbols to raise students’ PA. To investigate if this occurred, students were encouraged to sound out frequently used words based on Hill (1985), which were irrelevant to the non-words as used in the El Paso Phonics Survey. After several weeks of PA instruction, while students were familiar with the manipulation of phonemes and sound clusters, the vocabulary words from the textbook were incorporated into the practice pool. Suprasegmental elements such as stress, intonation, rhythm and linking were further instilled as other supplementary channels. On the whole, students showed high interest and attention in learning and they seemed to regard reading as fun and meaningful. Furthermore, they seemed more self-confident. This was particularly observed when they were requested to pronounce new words or read a passage aloud in unison (given that the passage was suitable for doing so). It is also noteworthy that the classroom atmosphere was more harmonious than before, and students frequently shared their individual progress or feedback from receiving PA training with the instructor. In total,


69

the experiment was conducted for about one semester (from the first mid-semester to second mid-semester). In order to examine subjects' progress in PA and vocabulary knowledge, the El Paso Phonics Survey and the Vocabulary Level Test (VLT) were conducted before and after PA training. The El Paso Phonics Survey, which consists of 90 items (with 58 consonants and 32 vowels respectively), was administered by recording subjects’ non-word pronunciations. In the language laboratory, all the subjects were requested to pronounce each individual sound and to produce a corresponding non-word pronunciation. Each item was given a 5-second pause on a pre-recorded cassette. The recording period for each subject lasted for about 8.5 minutes. In total, 280 cassettes were evaluated by the researchers although only 272 cassettes were ultimately available for analysis as 8 of them were recorded incompletely and were thus regarded as invalid. One week later, the Vocabulary Level Test was taken by each student to evaluate his/her vocabulary knowledge.

Data Analysis In this study, the level of vocabulary knowledge was determined according to the following guidelines: “If someone scores 12 or less out of 18 in a section of the test, then it is worth helping that learner study the vocabulary at that level” (Nation 1990. p. 262). Four vocabulary levels (1000, 2000, 3000, and 5000 words) were evaluated respectively. The total possible score of the VLT was 72 (= 1 x 4 x 18), and that of the phonics survey was 90 (58 consonants plus 32 vowels). After all scoring, the researchers used independent-t tests to check whether the subjects in the experimental group and the control group had similar phonological knowledge and vocabulary size in the pretest.

The Pearson product moment

correlation between the phonics score and the vocabulary score was calculated, and finally, one-way ANOVA was used to measure the different progress between the experimental group and the control group on the vocabulary knowledge score in the posttest.

70


RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Results of the Questionnaire In order to investigate students’ difficulties in English learning and their previous learning habits related to vocabulary acquisition and pronunciation skills, the researchers asked the subjects to self-report their experiences of, and capabilities in, English. Table 2 presents the results of this questionnaire. In Question 1, “Compared with other classmates, how do you think your overall English capability is,” none of the subjects self-reported that their English performance was excellent. Most subjects thought that their English capability was good (40.07%) or fair (35.66%). However, 66 (24.27%) out of 272 subjects believed that their English performance was poor. Based on Question 2, 189 (69.49%) out of 272 subjects responded that they had learned phonological skills, while about 30 percent of them reported that they never learned phonological skills before. Among the subjects who self-reported that they had learned phonological skills, most had learned them at elementary school, cram school (31.75%) or junior high school (59.79%). In question 3, “Should phonological skills be reinforced in English courses at college/university level,” almost 90% of the subjects answered “yes”. This suggests that the subjects believed that learning phonological skills is necessary for ESP university students. When the subjects responded to Question 4, “Do you think you still need phonological remedial instruction at technological university level,” 231 (84.93%) out of 272 subjects believed that PA training (functioned as remedial instruction) was necessary at technological university level. More than half of the subjects who believed that phonological remedial instruction was helpful to a university student, also responded that the instruction should focus on particular skills, such as letter-sound correspondence (51.08%), phonetic symbols (64.07%), intonation (56.71%) and juncture/linking (51.52%). When the subjects were asked in Question 5, “how do you think that correct pronunciation can help improve vocabulary acquisition,” most of them replied that the appropriate phonological skills were very helpful (54.05%) or helpful (40.44%) in acquiring new words. Interestingly, none answered that correct pronunciation is of no help for vocabulary acquisition. In Question 6, “Please estimate your vocabulary size. How sufficient is it to meet the technological course requirements,” only two (0.74%)


71

out of 272 subjects self-reported that they had sufficient vocabulary size to meet technological course requirements, while most of the subjects responded that their vocabulary size was insufficient (55.88%) or very insufficient (26.47%) to meet the course requirements of their study area. In the last question, more than half (56.25%) of the subjects recalled that when they memorize a new word, they read it first and then spelled it out. Table 2 Question 1 Question 2

Question 3 Question 4

Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

The Results of Questionnaire (N = 272)

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

0 (0%)

109 (40.07%)

97 (35.66%)

66 (24.27%)

Yes

No

189 (69.49%)

83 (30.51%)

Elementary

Junior high

Senior high

60 (31.75%)

113 (59.79%)

16 (8.46%)

Yes

No

244 (89.71%)

28 (10.29%)

Yes

No

231 (84.93%)

41 (15.07%)

Letter-sound

Phonetic symbols

Intonation

Juncture

118 (51.08%)

148 (64.07%)

131 (56.71%)

119 (51.52%)

Very helpful

Helpful

Rarely Helpful

No helpful

147 (54.04%)

110 (40.44%)

15 (5.52%)

0 (0%)

Sufficient enough

Fairly sufficient

Insufficient

Very insufficient

2 (0.74%)

46 (16.91%)

152 (55.88%)

72 (26.47%)

Read then spell

Spell then read

Spell letters only Read without spell

153 (56.25%)

54 (19.85%)

60 (22.06%)

5 (1.84%)

Results of Pretest for Phonics Survey and VLT The researchers divided all the subjects into two groups, experimental and control groups, for follow-up treatment. It is therefore a necessity to examine if both groups of subjects performed similarly in terms of PA and vocabulary size. The results from the

72


pretest shown in Table 3 revealed that, though the means of each variable differed, the level of significance of Leven’s test for equality between the two groups was not statistically significant (p > .05). The findings indicated that the subjects in the experimental group performed slightly better on phonological knowledge, including consonants and vowels, and vocabulary knowledge, but their performance may be explained by chance. Since the subjects in both groups had similar abilities both in phonological and vocabulary knowledge prior to this study, the progress of subjects in the experimental group could safely be attributed to the one-semester PA training in class instead of their prior sound-letter knowledge. Table 3 Variables Consonant

Leven’s Test for Equality of the Pretests

Groups

Experiment Control Vowel Experiment Control Total pronunciation Experiment Control 1,000-word Experiment Control 2,000-word Experiment Control 3,000-word Experiment Control 5,000-word Experiment Control Total vocabulary Experiment Control *p < .05; **p < .01

n

Means

SD

F

133 139 133 139 133 139 133 139 133 139 133 139 133 139 133 139

35.85 33.53 14.19 13.58 50.04 47.11 15.44 14.60 12.23 10.60 7.85 7.32 5.04 4.59 40.56 37.12

11.16 10.75 4.54 3.80 14.48 13.05 2.46 2.77 3.97 4.03 3.33 3.28 2.67 2.85 10.22 10.55

.10 2.26 1.37 2.92 .04 .38 1.94 .24

Results of the Posttest of Phonics Survey In order to investigate whether one-semester of PA training could improve the subjects’ vocabulary knowledge, the researchers analyzed the data of the posttest and then compared with the results of the pretest to find the gained scores of phonological


and vocabulary knowledge in both groups.

73

Table 4 shows the means, standard

deviations and gained scores of the independent variable (phonics score) at the posttest. The means of the subjects’ total phonics score was 61.37 (68.19%) out of 90 with a standard deviation of 13.10 in the experimental group and the gained score was 11.32, but the means of the subjects in the control group was 56.19 (62.14%) out of 90 with a standard deviation of 12.40 and a gained score of 9.08. This shows that the subjects in the experimental group increased more score in phonics assessment than did those in the control group. Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations and Gained Scores of Phonics Score at the Posttest (N = 272) Variables Groups n Mean SD Gained score (Pretest - Posttest) Consonant Experiment 133 43.68 9.93 7.83 Control 139 39.52 9.85 5.99 Vowel Experiment 133 17.68 4.34 3.49 Control 139 16.67 3.60 2.48 Total phonics Experiment 133 61.37 13.10 11.32 Control 139 56.19 12.40 9.08 Note. The total score of consonant test is 58 while the total score of vowel is 32. Therefore, the total score of consonant test and vowel test is 90.

From the descriptive statistics (Table 4) it appears that the subjects in the experimental group achieved a higher gain in their phonics scores than those in the control group. Since the different mean scores of phonics may be caused accidentally, it is necessary to use inferential statistics to examine if the difference of gained scores between the experimental group and the control group is statistically significant. Table 5 displays one-way ANOVA analysis of variance for the phonics scores at posttest by two groups. Based on PA training, the increase in consonant, vowel, and total phonics scores in the experimental group was more than that in the control group and the F tests for consonant scores, F (1, 270) = 13.13, p < .01, vowel score, F (1, 270) = 4.79, p < .05, and total phonics score F (1, 270) = 12.19, p < .01 were statistically significant. The subjects in the experimental group significantly performed better in the posttest of phonics survey than did those in the control group.

74


Table 5 Variables Consonant Vowel Total phonics

Analysis of Variance for the Phonics Score at Posttest (N = 272) Source Between subjects Within subjects Between subjects Within subjects Between subjects Within subjects

Mean square 1179.73 89.87 70.04 14.69 1824.68 149.67

df 1 270 1 270 1 270

F 13.13** 4.79* 12.19**

*p < .05; **p < .01

Results of the Posttest for Vocabulary Knowledge In order to investigate the influence of PA training on vocabulary knowledge, the variance for vocabulary knowledge at each level was analyzed. Table 6 reveals the means, standard deviations and gained scores of the dependent variable (vocabulary knowledge score) at the posttest. As for the total vocabulary knowledge score of the experimental group at the posttest, the subjects’ mean score was 45.02 (62.53%) with a standard deviation of 9.95 and the gained score was 4.46, while the subjects in the control group attained a mean score of 38.85 (53.96%) with a standard deviation of 9.42 and a gained score of 1.73. Comparing the gained scores, the subjects in the experimental group obtained higher score on average than their counterparts. Table 6

Means, Standard Deviations and Gained Scores of Vocabulary Knowledge at the Posttest (N = 272) Variables Groups n Mean SD Gained score (Pretest - Posttest) 1,000-word Experiment 133 16.13 2.42 0.69 Control 139 14.94 2.58 0.34 2,000-word Experiment 133 13.44 3.76 1.21 Control 139 11.44 3.65 0.84 3,000-word Experiment 133 9.23 3.39 1.46 Control 139 7.74 2.93 0.42 5,000-word Experiment 133 6.23 2.78 1.19 Control 139 4.73 2.77 0.14 Total vocabulary Experiment 133 45.02 9.95 4.46 Control 139 38.85 9.42 1.73 Note. The maximum vocabulary score of each level is 18; therefore, the total vocabulary score is 72.


75

In addition, the subjects in the experimental group achieved a higher score in each vocabulary level test than those in the control group. The difference between the score attained by the experimental group compared with the control group at each vocabulary level was 0.35 for the 1,000–word level, 0.37 for the 2,000-word level, 0.96 for the 3,000-word level and 1.05 for the 5,000-word level. Interestingly, the higher word level the subjects took, the more gained score the subjects in the experimental group earned. Due to the significant progress observed as a result of the PA training, the effects on vocabulary knowledge at each level and overall were evaluated. Table 7 shows the analysis of variance in total and at each level for the posttest vocabulary knowledge score by two groups. The gained score at each vocabulary level in the experimental group was slightly higher than that in the control group, and the F tests for the 1,000-word level, F (1, 270) = 17.20, p < .01, the 2,000-word level, F (1, 270) = 20.87, p < .01, the 3,000-word level, F (1, 270) = 16.36, p < .01, and the 5,000-word level, F (1, 270) = 20.51, p < .01, were therefore statistically significant. Overall, the subjects in the experimental group attained higher vocabulary knowledge scores (2.73 out of 90) than those in the control group and their better performance was statistically significant, F (1, 270) = 28.56, p < .01. Table 7 Analysis of Variance for the Vocabulary Knowledge Score at Posttest (N = 272) Variables Source Mean square df F 1,000-word Between subjects 96.66 1 17.20** Within subjects 5.62 270 2,000-word Between subjects 271.12 1 20.87** Within subjects 12.99 270 3,000-word Between subjects 149.79 1 16.36** Within subjects 9.16 270 5,000-word Between subjects 152.80 1 20.51** Within subject 7.45 270 Total vocabulary Between subjects 2590.48 1 28.56** Within subject 90.69 270 *p < .05; **p < .01.

76


Correlations between Vocabulary Knowledge and PA From the results of Table 4 and Table 6, the researchers found that increases in phonics scores matched increases in vocabulary knowledge scores both at each level and in total, particularly in the experimental group. In order to examine the relation between the phonics score and the vocabulary knowledge score, the researchers investigated the degree of relationship between dependent and independent variables. Table 8 shows the correlations between total phonics scores and vocabulary knowledge scores at pretest and posttest. The results show that the correlation of vocabulary knowledge scores between pretest and posttest was positive and significantly robust (r = .88). The correlation of phonics scores between pretest and posttest was also positive and significantly high (r = .80). Most subjects who performed better at pretest earned higher scores at posttest in both the phonics test and the vocabulary level test. Meanwhile, although most under-performing subjects at pretest made some progress in phonological awareness and vocabulary knowledge, they could still not catch up with the higher-performing students at posttest. The associations between the independent variable (the phonics scores) and the dependent variable (the vocabulary knowledge scores) were .48 at pretest and .49 at posttest. The Pearson’s coefficients between two variables were positive and modest. The vocabulary knowledge scores correlated significantly with the phonics scores at pretest and posttest. Applying simple regression to calculate the impact of the phonics score on the vocabulary score, the researchers found that the coefficients of determination (R2) were .23 at pretest and .24 at posttest. This indicates that about 24% of the variance in vocabulary knowledge is explained by phonics. Table 8 Inter-correlations (Pearson r) between the Scores for Vocabulary and Phonics at Pretest and Posttest (N = 272) Post-vocabulary Pre-phonics Post-phonics Pre-vocabulary Post-vocabulary Pre-phonics *p < .05; **p < .01.

.88**

.49**

.49**

.48**

.48** .80**


77

Discussion The questionnaire data revealed that technological university students believed their English capability to be not good and their vocabulary size to be insufficient to meet the course requirement of their majors.

They believed that PA training

(phonological remedial instruction) could improve their vocabulary size and pronunciation performance and they asserted that it is necessary to acquire phonological skills at university level. Since most technological university students memorize a new word by using the strategies of reading the target word first and then spelling it out, it seems that PA training is indispensable and rewarding. Initial data showed that subjects in both groups performed similarly on tests of both phonics and vocabulary knowledge. They took the same required course---Basic English, used unified textbooks, and took the unified achievement test in the final examination. Due to the limitation of the same-paced syllabus, roughly only ten minutes could be allotted for PA training. After training for a semester, the subjects in the experimental group achieved higher phonics scores than those of the control group. They also obtained significantly more vocabulary knowledge than those in the control group. The results in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 thus answer the research question: “Does phonological

awareness

training

affect

students’ vocabulary

knowledge

at

technological university level?” in the affirmative. In general, students receiving PA training for a semester achieve a general knowledge

of

phonetic

symbols,

the

regularity/irregularity

of

sound-letter

correspondence, syllabic skills, and suprasegmental knowledge. This acquired phonological awareness enables them to decode and to recognize unfamiliar words, as shown by the subjects in the experimental group outperforming those in the control group by 2.24 on the phonics test. They also increased their vocabulary knowledge score 2.73 more than their counterparts (see Table 3 and 4). These outcomes suggest that phonological awareness is linked to higher levels of performance in lexical processing; leading to the suggestion that PA training not only improves technological university students’ phonics, but also effectively expands their vocabulary knowledge. The results in Table 4 reveal that the significant relationships between phonics

78


scores and vocabulary knowledge scores at pretest and posttest were moderate (r = .49 and .48). The coefficient of determination (R2) between the independent variable and the dependent variable indicates that about 23-24 % of the variance in the vocabulary knowledge score was explained by phonics score. This further suggests that phonics training is critical in the acquisition of vocabulary knowledge and one quarter of technological university students’ vocabulary knowledge appears to depend on their phonics. The remainder (76-77%) of their vocabulary knowledge might depend upon the influence of other factors such as learning strategies, interest, motivation, cultural knowledge and memory (Nation, 2001). Based on the positive influence of phonics instruction on vocabulary knowledge, the findings of this study correspond with some other researchers’ (Ball & Blachman, 1988; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Lundberg et al., 1988; Treiman & Baron, 1983) assertion that ESL/EFL students who receive phonological awareness training are better equipped to decode words and improve their reading comprehension. From the data analyses of Table 6, the researchers found that once subjects’ PA was enhanced, their vocabulary knowledge score at each level also significantly progressed. Subjects utilized the phonological skills they had learned in class to decode lexical items and remember words. When they encountered unfamiliar words, they applied memory associations between known words such as sight words, and their correspondent pronunciations. This result was in accordance with claims by Kleiman (1975) and Levy (1975) that a major function of the phonological code is to facilitate stored information in working memory. Once the subjects had learned strategies for acquiring unknown words, they could expand their vocabulary knowledge significantly over a single semester.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION The results of this study reveal that PA training does benefit students’ vocabulary knowledge at technological university level. Chinese is normally categorized as a logographic language in terms of its orthographic system, and much “empirical data suggest that there are strong connections between first language orthographic systems and second language processing procedures” (Koda, 1997, p. 46). It is often assumed


79

that non-alphabetic first language readers are vague about PA and thus do not engage in or even skip phonological processing at the phonemic level in their second language reading (Bialystok et al., 2003). Therefore, the researchers offer the following suggestions. (1) Second language teachers should diagnose their students’ phonological problems and be aware of their students’ weaknesses and strengths in learning to read. PA training is thus highly recommended in an attempt to increase EFL students’ vocabulary knowledge even at university level; (2) Although silent reading is frequently used in university instructional level, reading aloud is still a good method to offer more opportunities for Taiwanese students to enhance their comprehension with the help of phonological skills; (3) In order to improve technological university students’ phonological knowledge and vocabulary knowledge, English teachers should offer more opportunities for their students to practice and use their newly learned phonological awareness. (4) Finally, and if possible, an extensive outside reading program, which Taiwanese students frequently lack most, needs to be incorporated in curricula to consolidate PA training. In summary, offering PA training to technological university students is appropriate in view of the facts that they generally do not have a solid foundation to their English from previous learning experiences, and that they have stored thousands of words in mind which enable them to manipulate the known word-parts with corresponding pronunciations. Moreover, adult EFL learners have better understanding on how a language is structured and manipulated. The ultimate goals of reading instruction, in short, are to help students to achieve automaticity in decoding words, to acquire comprehension of texts, and to nurture a desire to read. These researchers believe that a clear understanding of specific linguistic functions should lead students to higher motivation for learning and using those features to improve both their word knowledge and their reading ability as a whole.

80


REFERENCES Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phonemes segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness. Annual of Dyslexia, 38, 208-225. Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27-44. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorising sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. Bryne, B., & Fieding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational psychology, 83, 451-455. Bryne, B., Freebody, P., & Gates, A. (1972). Longitudinal data on the relations of word-reading strategies to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 140-151. Chen, C.M., & Yau, M. J. (1982). “ Liberalization in the visual perception of Chinese characters.” Brain and Language. 36, 669-689. De Jong, P. F., & der Leij, A. van (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 51-77. Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 12-26. Ekwall, E. E. (1979). Ekwall Reading Inventory (pp. 28-29). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 439-454. Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G., Service, E., & Martin, A. J. (1997). Phonological short-term memory and new word learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 966-979. Hill, L. A. (1985). Word power 1500: Vocabulary tests and exercises. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Hsieh, L. T. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading ability: A study of Chinese EFL junior high school students. A paper presented in The International Conference on ESL/EFL Literacies in the Asia-Pacific Region. Huang, C. C. (2000). A threshold for vocabulary knowledge. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R. O. C. (pp. 132-144). Taiwan: Crane. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.


81

Kavanagh J. F., & Mattingly, I. G. (Eds.) (1972). Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kleiman, G.M. (1975). Speech recording in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 323-339. Koda, K. (1997). Orthographic knowledge in L2 lexical processing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 35-52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Levy, B.A. (1975). Vocalization and suppression effects in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 304-316. Liberman, I. Y. (1982). A language-oriented view of reading and its disabilities. In H. Mykelbust (Ed.), Progress in learning disabilities, Vol. 5 (pp. 81-101). New York: Grune & Stratton. Liberman, I. Y., Rubin, H., Duques, S., & Carlisle J. (l985). Linguistic abilities and spelling proficiency in kindergartens and adult poor spellers. In D.B. Gray & J. F. Kavanaugh (Eds.), Biobehavioral measures of dyslexia (pp. 163-176). Parkton, MD: New York Press. Lin, S. J., Su, Brenda S. C., & Huang, C. C. (2001). A preliminary study on Taiwanese ESP learners’ phonemic awareness. Studies in English Language and Literature, 9, 39-55. Lundberg, I. Y., Frost, J., & Petterson, O. P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284. MacDonald, G. W., & Cornwall, A. (1995). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading and spelling achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(8), 523-527. Mann, V. A. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of reading experience. Cognition, 24, 65-92. Mann, V. A., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 811-816. Mattingly, I. G. (1984). Reading, linguistic awareness, and language acquisition. In J. Downing & R. Valtin (Eds.), Language awareness and learning to read (pp. 9-25). New York: Springer-Verlag. Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51(2), 187-219. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching & learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

82


Pratt, A., & Brady, S. (1988). The relationship of phonological awareness to reading disability in children and adults. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 319-323. Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1986). Language mechanisms and reading disorder: A modular approach. Cognition, 24, 139-168. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Treiman, R. (1991). Phonological awareness and its roles in learning to read and spell. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds), Phonological awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 159-189). New York: Springer-Verlag. Treiman, R., & Baron J. (1983). Phonemic-analysis training helps children benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory and Cognition, 11, 382-389. Tunmer, W. E., & Herriman, M. L. (1984). The development of metalinguistic awareness: A conceptual overview. In W. E. Tunmer, C. Pratt & M. L. Herriman (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in children: Theory, research and implications (pp. 12-35). New York: Springer-Verlag. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158. Tunmer, W. E. & Rohl, M. (1991). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition. In D.J. Sawyer & B, J, Fox (Eds.), Phonological Awareness in Reading: The Evolution of Current Perspectives (pp. 1-30). New York: Springer-Verlag. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.


83

Appendix A Questionnaire

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Name__________ Student No. _________ Major department_________________________ Previous school: □ high school □ vocational high school The length of English learning experience: about ______years ______months. Compare with other classmates, how do you think your overall English competence is? □ excellent □ good □ fair □ poor Have you ever learned phonological skills (such as phonetic symbols, intonation, rhythm, letter-sound correspondence) before? □ yes □ no If the answer is ‘yes,’ when did you learn those skills? □ at the elementary school or cram school □ at junior middle school □ at senior high/vocational high school Should phonological skills be reinforced in English courses at college/university level? □ yes □ no Do you think you still need phonological remedial instruction at technological university level? □ yes □ no If the answer is ‘yes,’ what particular skill should be emphasized? (Choose one or more) □ letter-sound correspondence □ phonetic symbols □ intonation □ juncture/linking How do you think the right pronunciation could help improve vocabulary acquisition? □ very helpful □ helpful □ rarely helpful □ not helpful Please estimate your vocabulary size. How sufficient is it to meet the technological course requirement? □ sufficient enough □ fairly sufficient □ insufficient □ very insufficient How did you memorize a new word? □ read it first and then spelled it out □ spelled it out then read it □ spelled out the letters of each word □ read the word without spelling it out

84


Appendix B A. Consonants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

p n s t r m b d w h f j k l c g y v z c g qu x pl fr fl st bl tr gr br sh th wh ch dr pr sl cl gl sm sk cr tw sn

am up up up up in up up am up in in am in am up in am in in in am ox up in am up in in up in up up up am up am up in am in am in am up

pam nup sup tup tup min bup dup wam hup fin jin kam lin cam gup yin vam zin cin gin quam mox plup frin flam stup blin trin grup brin shup thup whup cham drup pram slup clin glam smin skam crin twam snup

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

sch am sp am sc up str am thr up shr up squ am sw up spr am spl in wr in dw in scr up

scham spam scup stram thrup shrup squam swup spam splin wrin dwin scrup

B. Vowels 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

a i e o u i-e e-e a-e u-e o-e oo oo ea ea ai ay oe oa ee ow ow or ir ur aw oi ou ar oy er ew au

pam rit nep sot tum tipe rete sape pune sote foot food head eam ait tay poe oan eem cow crow orm irt urd awp doi tou arb moy ert bew dau


Appendix C Vocabulary Level Test 1. do 2. far 3. gold 4. clear 5. human 6. least 1. me 2. or 3. run 4. never 5. small 6. possible 1. add 2. than 3. tree 4. group 5. concern 6. whether 1. sing 2. sure 3. prove 4. college 5. advantage 6. independent 1. dry 2. gas 3. corn 4. marry 5. remark 6. personal 1. wise 2. glass 3. defeat 4. operate 5. republic

_____ 黃金 _____ 最小的 _____ 做

_____ 從未 _____ 可能的 _____ 小的

_____ 群、團體 _____ 樹 _____ 增加

_____ 獨立的 _____ 益處、優勢 _____ 無疑的

_____ 結婚 _____ 談起、陳述、批評 _____ 乾燥的

_____ 玻璃 _____ 明智的 _____ 共和國

85

86


6. statement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

original private royal slow sorry total

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

apply elect jump manufacture melt threaten

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

blame hide hit invite pour spoil

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

accident choice debt fortune pride roar

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

basket crop flesh salary temperature thread

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

birth dust operation row sport victory

_____ 完整的、全體的 _____ 原始的、起初的 _____ 私人的

_____ 選舉 _____ 溶解 _____ 製造

_____ 隱藏 _____ 損壞 _____ 邀請

_____ 驕傲 _____ 債務 _____ 吼叫

_____ 薪水 _____ 溫度 _____ 肉

_____ 出生 _____ 運動 _____ 勝利


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

administration angel front herd mate pond

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

bench charity fort jar mirror province

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

coach darling echo interior opera slice

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

marble palm ridge scheme statue thrill

1. discharge 2. encounter 3. illustrate 4. knit 5. prevail 6. toss 1. annual 2. blank 3. brilliant 4. concealed 5. definite 6. savage

_____ 獸群 _____ 天使 _____ 行政管理

_____ 省 _____ 慈善(機構) _____ 長板凳

_____ 薄片 _____ 親愛的 _____ 回音

_____ 手掌 _____ 激動 _____ 計劃、方案

_____ 圖解 _____ 遭遇 _____ 投擲

_____ 野蠻的 _____ 明確的 _____ 年度的

87

88


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

alcohol apron lure mess phase plank

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

circus jungle nomination sermon stool trumpet

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

apparatus compliment revenue scrap tile ward

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

bruise exile ledge mortgage shovel switch

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

blend devise embroider hug imply paste

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

desolate fragrant gloomy profound radical wholesome

_____ 圍裙 _____ 局面、發展階段 _____ 髒亂

_____ 喇叭 _____ 凳子 _____ 講道

_____ 器械 _____ 一年的歲收 _____ 恭維

_____ 抵押 _____ 窄架子 _____ 瘀傷

_____ 擁抱 _____ 設計 _____ 混合

_____ 有益健康的 _____ 芳香的 _____ 憂鬱的

國立臺北師範學院學報，第十七卷第一期（九十三年三月）59～90 國立臺北師範學院

89

語音覺識訓練對科技大學學生字母拼讀與字彙知識之影響黃金誠、林秀芝、蘇淑貞 *

摘

要

由於語音覺識在語言學習上扮演著關鍵性的地位，所以長期以來，語音覺識訓練是啟蒙語言學習最重要的課題之一。近幾十年來，已使用類似語音覺識訓練課程切入幫助矯正學習不良學童的閱讀。但此類的研究似乎極少以成人為對象，尤其是對科技大學學生的研究幾乎沒有。是故，本研究旨在探討語音覺識訓練對科技大學學生字母拼讀與字彙知識的影響。總共有 272 位科技大學一年級學生參與本研究，其中實驗組有 133 位，而控制組有 139 位，每位參與研究的學生均需填寫一份問卷調查，朗讀 EI Paso 語音測驗和回答字彙測驗卷。實驗組學生必須接受一學期的語音覺識訓練。訓練重點在於字母與語音聯結、音素認知、音節知識、同音節音和音標的認識。實驗結果顯示語音覺識訓練不但能有效地改善科技大學學生語音知識，更能增加其字彙知識。由於大部份科技大學大一學生在入學前僅擁有極有限的子音與母音知識，因此本研究者建議科技大學的英文教學應該指導學生語音覺識概念，以迅速提昇其字彙知識。

關鍵字：語音覺識、字彙知識、字母拼讀、科技大學學

*

黃金誠：國立屏東科技大學應用外語系助理教授林秀芝：國立屏東科技大學應用外語系講師蘇淑貞：國立屏東科技大學應用外語系講師

90

國立臺北師範學院學報，第十七卷第一期