The Language Teacher

To test this argument I used a ranking task in small groups in order to determine whether students who favour usage of their L1 (Japanese) would peer-teach and learn new vocabulary.

The Research Background.

Research by Saragi, Nation, and Meister (1978) indicated that learners at a similar proficiency level have a surprisingly varied knowledge of vocabulary. When I gave the Word Levels Test (Nation, 1990) to one of my senior high school classes, I found this to be the case. The test is short, using sample words from frequency word lists to test learners' vocabulary knowledge at various levels. The class was considered to be the "top English class" in the second year, and the students had been grouped together on that basis. The 48 students' scores on the 2,000 Level Test are as follows.

Table 1

Mean	10.27	High	16/18
Median	9.5	Low	3/18
Midpoint	9.5	Range	14
Mode	13 (8 students)	N =	48

Out of a possible score of 18, the range was as wide as 14. Of more interest, however, were the figures which indicate how many of the words were known by all of the students, how many were known by at least one but not all, and how many were unknown to all. Table 2 divides the test scores in these three ways, first for all the class members and then for two statistical groups within it.

These figures indicate that even among the eight students who had scored 13 out of 18,14 of the words were known by at least one student, but not by all.

Several studies (e.g., Pica and Doughty, 1985) have shown that peer-teaching and learning through group work can be very effective. Newton (1994) demonstrated how vocabulary learning can take place through group communication tasks. The figures in Table 2 indicated to me that the idea was worth pursuing with my students. Newton also demonstrated that for learning to occur, it is important for learners to negotiate the meanings of words and-even more significantly-to make use of the target words.

Most of my students use Japanese when left to their own devices, unless the English required is very simple and/or provided in written form. I was, therefore, doubtful that a task which called for discussion within groups would lead to English vocabulary learning. I wondered too, how significant the make-up of the groups would be for vocabulary learning. Work by Willing (cited in Nunan, 1991) has shown that some learners are more dependent on a teacher than others. I wondered how important it would be for the groups to contain at least one "strong" member; that is, someone who had the ability and/or character to direct the others when needed. To test this I decided not to explain the meaning of words to groups, even if requested.

The Students, the Task, and the Target Words Test. The learners who completed this task were second year senior high school students, aged 16-17. The ranking task sheet read:

A Ranking Activity A new magazine. We are planning a new magazine for all of youboys and girls between 13 and 18. We want you to help us to make sure that you really enjoy our new magazine. Look at the features below and decide which is most important for you. Number it "1," and so on, down to "9." A column answering your letters about personal problems Good sports reports News about the pop scene Crosswords and puzzles Good sports reports News about the pop scene Crosswords and puzzles Letters from people the same age in other countries A short story every week Health and appearance suggestions Technical reports about cars and scientific developments Really attractive pin-up pictures

It was important for me not to number the features; I wanted to prevent students from referring to them in their discussions by number or letter, rather than by use of the words. Without reference to the target vocabulary, it would have been far more difficult for us to meet four of the important vocabulary learning conditions-noticing, repeating, negotiating, and generating Joe, 1994)

Table 2

Correctly answered by all students	0	3	4
Correctly answered by one or more Ss. but not all	18	14	14
Incorrectly answered by all students	0	1	0

To find out how many of the words written on the task sheet the learners knew before they undertook the task, I administered a test (Table 3) modelled on the Word Levels Test. My test contained the words I thought students might have trouble with along with others I expected them to know, but not words I knew they would all know, such as sports. To ensure that six words were listed in each section, I added four words from the 2,000 Word Levels Test. I was slightly concerned as to whether my definitions were clear enough for learners at this level, but was heartened when students (in a "pilot" group) I expected to score highly did so; for example, one girl who had recently spent two years in England scored full marks, and a boy who had been there a year scored 11 out of 12. On the left side of the test paper was a copy of the Word Levels Test "how to do this" explanation. On the right was the Ranking Task Target Words Test shown in Table 3.

The Procedure

Before carrying out the experiment, I wanted to know if this was a task the students would find interesting. Therefore, I gave the ranking task to certain classes without previously administering the test in Table 3. I checked which words the groups did not know. I was rather dismayed to discover that some groups completed the task to their own satisfaction without knowing, or even trying to find the meaning of certain words.

Table 3.

Match the Word and the Definition:

1 ranking
2 problem	... writing every day / week/ month
3 column	. . . in a magazine or newspaper
4 personal	. . . to put in order from high to low
5 scene	. . . situation, area of an interest
6 jump

.......................................................................................................................................................

1 crossword
2 news	. . . advice, idea for someone
3 appearance	. . . special and practical parts of a subject
4 suggestion
5 technical	. . . what something looks like
6 history

.......................................................................................................................................................

1 feature
2 scientific	. . . change, new thing happening
3 development	. . . good-looking
4 attractive	. . . something to do
5 athletic
6 activity

........................................................................................................................................................

1 report
2 age	. . . picture of a young woman or a young man
3 puzzle
4 health	. . . how old
5 pin-up	. . . talk or writing about a situation
6 flesh

Once all the groups had finished I had them tell me their rankings. I wrote them on the board so that we could compare the results. There were some interesting differences.

While the students were completing the activity, I found that they would clam up if I hovered too closely, so my attempts to monitor their negotiations or use of words were unsuccessful. I decided, therefore, to tape-record groups for this study.

Three Monitored Groups: A Study

Word test results: The groups I monitored each con sisted of four students. Groups A and B completed the pre-test at the beginning of one class, the ranking task two weeks later, and the post-test a week after that. Group C did the pre-test immediately before the activity and the post-test two weeks later. Table 4 shows the students' scores on these tests. Table 5 divides the data to show the differences in word knowledge both between, and within, the groups.

The figures from the tests (shown in Tables 4 and 5) indicate that, as a vocabulary learning exercise, the ranking task was far more successful for groups A and C than for group B. Although the mean score for A and C on the pre-test was only 0.75 more than that of B, the post-test mean scores indicated far more impressive gains. The raw scores for learners in A and C also showed satisfactory gains, except for the two "strongest" members of the groups. he scorer of 10/12 on the pre-test in group C actually scored full marks on an immediate post-test, but failed to recall well two weeks later.) B's results show a much more stagnant picture; furthermore, Table 5 shows that the number of words known by all the learners in Group B did not increase at all after the task.

Table 4

Pre-test

Post-test

Change

Group A:	R	11	11	0
	K1	6	7	+1
	K2	5	10	+5
	A	9	10	+1
	(Mean)	(7.75)	(9.5)
Group B:	K	5	5	0
	S	7	7	0
	A	8	9	+1
	Y	8	8	0
	(Mean)	(7)	(7.25)
Group C:	Y1	7	9	+2
	Y2	10	9	-1
	I	7	10	+3
	N	7	11	+4
	(Mean)	(7.75)	(9.75)

(Scores are out of 12.)

Results and Observations: As I expected, most of the discussion within the groups during the activity took place in Japanese. Most of the vocabulary learning which did take place seems to have occurred through noticing and some negotiation, that is, teaching each other. Quite markedly, the negotiation which did occur was found in groups A and C, especially the latter. Group C's recording also showed more use and discussion of the words and features in the task, albeit by retrieving the words from the activity sheet and inserting them in the discussion in Japanese. In all groups, however, there was little use of the words on the sheet except by reading them aloud before deciding where each feature should be placed.

Analysis: As a vocabulary learning exercise, and as an activity which produced a discussion and exchange of views on certain proposed features, the tests and recordings showed the ranking task was most successful for group C. It was worthwhile too, for group A. Both groups had one strong member, that is someone who had scored 10 or 11 out of 12 on the pre-test and whose personality was such that he or she could lead the groups in the discussion and peer-teach effectively. Group C's members were more involved while doing the task. This might have been due to their taking the pre-test immediately before beginning the task, which may have positively affected their noticing, but I do not believe that this was the main factor. I observed other groups in their class not 2 participating as actively in discussion, while some groups in the class which included groups A and B were just as active or more. I believe that the atmosphere of the groups was a far more significant fac- 3. tor. I noticed in later weeks that the two strongest members of group A (scores 11 and 9 in the pre-test) were avoiding contact with each other, even though 4 they sat next to each other in class.

Table 5

Group:	A	B	C
	pre- post-	pre- post-	pre- post-

Correctly answered by all four	2 6	2 2	2 8
Correctly answered by one or more but not all	10 6	9 9	9 3
Incorrectly answered by all four	0 0	1 1	1 1

The members of group B got on well, and I know them to be keen students, but no member began by knowing substantially more words than the others, and no member possessed a strength of purpose to take charge of the discussion. They were the only group of the three who asked me the meaning of any words while doing the activity. I asked them to try to work out the answers to their questions among them- 5. selves by any means they could. They completed the task enjoyably, but not in an enlightened nor very purposeful fashion.

Summary: Students did learn words by completing the activity even without any vocabulary teaching by the teacher. However, as a vocabulary learning activity for the students in this experiment, it was not universally successful. Some learners gained quite substantially, others not at all.

The learning which did take place occurred in spite of the predominant use of Japanese during the activity. This shows that such a task, though perhaps limited in its range and depth of use, is not a waste of time even for such students.

A comparison of the test results and performances of the different groups (A and C vs. B) shows that the negotiation of word meaning, and use of words during the task were significant. Group B's learners repeated (by reading) the words more often than group A's, but "learned" less.

Finally, but significantly, the make-up of groups doing a ranking task seems to be important for vocabulary learning to occur through group work and peer-teaching.

Conclusion

The experiment shows that such a ranking task as that described, even with large classes of high school students sharing and using the same L1, can lead to vocabulary learning. It can, therefore, be an effective language learning exercise as well as an enjoyable activity for students. However, to maximise the chances of words being learned, I would suggest:

1. At least for these students, some form-focused instruction and some direct vocabulary teaching by the teacher would be useful for weaker students especially, unless there are enough students in the class who can take on the role of teacher in their group. Teachers should, in any case, be willing to respond to requests for help.

2. The topic and features to be ranked should interest the students. The task described in this paper did interest the students, but not all topics would.

3. Ideally, the Ranking Task Target Words Test should be more sensitively constructed, with the definitions in Japanese.

4. When designing the task, words that the teacher hopes the students will learn should be incorporated into the list of features because they are more likely to receive more attention than words in the introduction. I observed that only one group negotiated the meaning of ranking, one other group actually used it; activity was merely read once or twice by each group.

5. When setting up the activity in the classroom the teacher should give careful consideration to the make-up of the groups. It is not easy to get it right if the classes are big and the teacher sees each class once a week at the most. However, it is an important factor which requires a good degree of thought.

References

Joe, A. (1994). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Unpublished manuscript, Victoria University of Wellington.

Joe, A., Nation, P., and Newton, J. (1994). Speaking activities and vocabulary learning. Unpublished manuscript, Victoria University of Wellington.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Newton, J. (1994). Vocabulary learning and communication tasks. Unpublished manuscript, Victoria University of Wellington.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Pica, T., and Doughty, C. (1985). The role of groupwork in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248.

Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., and Meister, G. E:. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System, 6(2), 72-78.

Tim Knight currently teaches at Shukutoku Sugamo High School, Ferris University, and Tokyo Kasei Gakuin Junior College. He recently completed an M.Ed. (TESOL) at Temple University Japan. His academic interests include discourse and language awareness.