relc journal 2014 song 67 84

RELC Journal2014, Vol. 45(1) 67 –84© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0033688214522623rel.sagepub.com

EFL Learners’ Incidental Acquisition of English Prepositions through Enhanced Extensive Reading Instruction

Jayoung Song The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Veronica Gabriela Sardegna The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Abstract This study investigated whether enhanced extensive reading contributed to significant gains on the incidental acquisition of English prepositions. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) secondary school students in Korea ( N =12) received enhanced extensive reading instruction for one semester in an after-school program. Pre- and post-achievement scores on preposition use revealed that this group exhibited gains in noticing and correcting wrong prepositions, and on producing correct prepositions. However, pre- and post- achievement scores drawn from a comparable group not receiving the additional instruction ( N =12) exhibited small gains only in noticing wrong prepositions in sentences. Students’ responses to retrospective interviews provided evidence for five factors likely to affect the acquisition of English prepositions through enhanced extensive reading: increased reading comprehension, increased vocabulary knowledge, frequent encounters of prepositions in meaningful contexts, increased intuition for preposition use, and opportunities to use the newly taken input in output activities. These results suggested that enhanced extensive reading can effectively contribute to EFL secondary school students’ incidental acquisition of English prepositions.

Keywords Extensive reading , incidental learning , output activities , EFL , enhanced extensive reading

Corresponding author: Jayoung Song, The University of Texas at Austin, 1912 Speedway Stop D5700, Austin, TX 78712-1293, USA. Email: [email protected]

522623 REL 0 0 10.1177/0033688214522623 RELC Journal Song and Sardegna research-article 2014

Article

by guest on December 5, 2015rel.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rel.sagepub.com/

68 RELC Journal 45(1)

Introduction

Over the past two decades, incidental learning as a theory of language acquisition has received much attention in foreign/second language education. It has been defined as learning without an intention to learn, or the learning of one thing (e.g. vocabulary) when the learner’s primary focus is to do something else (e.g. communication) (Schmidt, 1994). Because research evidence indicates that constant exposure to target input can increase the effectiveness of incidental learning, many studies dealing with incidental learning have centered on students’ gains from reading for pleasure—i.e. through exten-sive reading. Although during extensive reading the focus is on meaning and not on language forms, empirical evidence suggests that extensive reading approaches posi-tively contribute to language development. Yet, when these approaches are compared to enhanced reading conditions (i.e. extensive reading plus post-reading activities), their effectiveness is severely challenged. Studies comparing the effectiveness of ‘reading only’ with ‘reading supplemented with activities’ (Laufer, 2003; Min, 2008; Zimmerman, 1997) have reported that the latter leads to significant gains and retention, and increases the likelihood of incidental gains through extensive reading. Drawing on the positive evidence associated with constant input through extensive reading and target output though production activities, this study investigates the combined effects of extensive reading with communicative output activities (henceforth, ‘enhanced extensive reading’) on EFL learners’ incidental development of English prepositions.

Literature Review

Incidental learning is defined as a ‘by-product, not the target, of the main cognitive activity; (Huckin and Coady, 1999: 182). As Shintani and Ellis (2011) defined, ‘incidental acquisi-tion is the learning of one L2 feature without intention while attention is focused on some other aspect of the L2 such as semantic meaning’ (p. 608). Researchers favoring incidental learning conditions emphasize the importance of input (Krashen, 1985) or interaction in which learners can notice specific words or linguistic forms from communicative input or meaning negotiation during communication (Pica, 1994; Schmidt, 1994). Studies investi-gating the effects of input received from extensive reading interventions have shown stu-dents’ incidental gains mostly in vocabulary development (Brown et al., 2008; Cho and Krashen, 1994; Day et al., 1992; Hayashi, 1999; Pigada and Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 1999; Sheu, 2003); but also in reading comprehension and reading speed (Bell, 2001; Elley and Mangubhai, 1983; Hafiz and Tudor, 1990; Lai, 1993; Nishino, 2007), writing (Elley, 1991; Lai, 1993; Tudor and Hafiz, 1989), listening and speaking (Cho and Krashen, 1994) and grammar (Elley and Mangubhai, 1983; Sheu, 2003; Tudor and Hafiz, 1989).

Although the general consensus is that incidental learning through extensive reading is helpful for ESL/ELF learners’ language development, it is also apparent that the pro-cess is slow, unpredictable, and haphazard (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Paribakht and Wesche, 1999). According to Gass’ (1988) information processing framework, L2 knowledge acquisition consists of five stages: apperceived input, comprehended input, intake, inte-gration, and output. Apperceived input denotes input that is ‘noticed’ by the learner and linked to some prior knowledge. Comprehended input refers to the information success-fully achieved from the learner with some effort. Intake involves the process of



Song and Sardegna 69

integrating linguistic information from the target language input (i.e. internalizing L2 rules or forms from the new information). Comprehended input is likely to result in intake although some information may be lost. Finally, output enables learners to inter-nalize new knowledge through reanalysis or ‘noticing’ by producing the target feature. Thus, it is output that converts most input to intake.

Using Gass’ framework, Paribakht and Wesche (1997) compared two instructional settings—Reading Only vs. Reading Plus treatment. In the Reading Only treatment, stu-dents read four selected texts and answered comprehension questions. In the Reading Plus treatment, students performed a series of vocabulary exercises after answering the reading comprehension questions. The results showed that the students in the Reading Plus group improved their vocabulary knowledge significantly more than those in the Reading Only group. Min (2008) examined the combined effect of reading plus vocabu-lary enhancing activities on EFL Taiwanese learners’ (N=55) vocabulary acquisition and also found evidence for the superiority of the reading-plus-vocabulary-enhancing-activ-ities group over another reading-only group for greater target vocabulary acquisition and retention. Through learners’ self-reports, Zimmerman (1997) also found that reading with vocabulary activities not only led to more incidental gains, but also resulted in stu-dents’ positive attitudes toward reading and vocabulary activities.

Some other enhancement techniques that researchers have employed together with extensive reading include dictionaries (Cho and Krashen, 1994; Hulstijn et al., 1996; Laufer, 2000), glosses (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Laufer, 2003), and a variety of output activi-ties (Amiryousefi and Kassaian, 2010; Laufer, 2003; Paribakht and Wesche, 1996, 1999). These enhancement techniques were found to contribute positively to learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition. For example, learners constantly consulting either an electronic dictionary (Laufer, 2000) or a paperback dictionary (Cho and Krashen, 1994) received higher scores on a subsequent test than those who did not. To the best of our knowledge, no study to date has investigated the incidental acquisition of specific grammatical items through extensive reading with communicative output activities. This study aims to fill this gap in our knowledge base.

Also, unlike vocabulary studies, most incidental grammar acquisition studies employed indirect and/or insensitive measurements of overall grammatical competence. For example, some used a small number of multiple-choice grammatical questions (Elley and Mangubhai, 1983; Sheu, 2003). Others demonstrated partial grammatical gains through tests of syntactic structure in students’ writing (Tudor and Hafiz, 1989). Pigada and Schmitt (2006) conducted a study that had important implications for our study because it investigated the lexical knowledge development of a learner of French through a test that was sensitive to the learner’s partial knowledge of spelling, meaning, and the grammatical behavior of words. The results showed that the student improved in the grammatical mastery of nouns (e.g. knowledge of appropriate article), but his improve-ment in the grammatical mastery of verbs (e.g. knowledge of appropriate preposition) was much lower. Yet, results from one participant cannot be generalizable to a larger population. Shintani and Ellis (2011) examined the incidental acquisition of a specific grammatical item: English plural–s. Thirty-six Japanese EFL children (aged six to eight) were divided into three groups: Comprehension-based instruction (CBI), production-based instruction (PBI), and a control group. The results showed that the CBI and PBI groups also outperformed the control group on their incidental grammar acquisition.




The studies reviewed revealed two important aspects concerning incidental acquisi-tion: both grammar and vocabulary incidental acquisition can take place, and incidental acquisition can occur for both overall grammatical competence and specific grammati-cal features, such as English plural–s. However, more empirical studies with more par-ticipants using sensitive measurements are needed to support more strongly the view that extensive reading facilitates the incidental acquisition of specific linguistic fea-tures. Also, considering that learners can notice the gaps in their vocabulary knowledge when attempting to produce an output in communicative tasks, it is of importance to investigate whether this enhanced extensive reading approach (i.e. extensive reading with communicative output activities) could also lead to incidental grammar acquisi-tion. The present study attempts to add insights to the literature by investigating the effectiveness of this approach on the incidental acquisition of a specific feature: English prepositions. We chose English prepositions for our unit of analysis because of the fol-lowing reasons:

1. English prepositions constitute a substantial portion of ESL learners’ errors (Bitchener et al., 2005).

2. Grammatical collocations (i.e. when prepositions follow a noun, adjective or verb, or precede a noun) are hard to master as they do not follow any rules (Ahranjani and Shadi, 2012).

3. The choice of an English preposition as an argument marker often varies depend-ing on how it is being expressed (e.g. they loaded hay on the wagon vs. they loaded the wagon with hay) (Levin, 1993).

4. Prepositions appear in adjuncts, which in English are (a) optional, (b) flexible in their position in a sentence, and (c) constrained by their object as well as their intended meaning (i.e. on the beach vs. at the beach).

5. English prepositions are specially challenging for English language learners whose L1 has no prepositions, such as the Korean language.

Language instruction in secondary schools in Korea is characterized by strict adher-ence to a language textbook with few opportunities for extensive reading or oral activi-ties (Lee, 2011). Based on the literature reviewed, we hypothesized that if Korean learners received additional instruction based on enhanced extensive reading activities, they would exhibit greater incidental gains in preposition use (i.e. on a challenging lin-guistic feature to master and one that would not be targeted for explicit instruction; yet one that appears often in reading texts) than a group that only receives regular instruction at school. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a study that sought to answer the follow-ing research questions:

1. Is there a significant difference in acquisition of English prepositions between a group of students receiving regular English instruction in a Korean secondary school and another group receiving enhanced extensive reading instruction in an EFL after school program in Korea?

2. What factors, if any, contribute to the incidental acquisition of English prepositions?




Method

Participants

Twenty-four students in their third year of secondary school in Korea (equivalent to 9th grade in the US; aged 15-16) participated in the study. Twelve of them (8 males and 4 females; henceforth the regular instruction group/RI) only took the regular instruction at school. English instruction offered at the secondary level in Korea should strictly follow a national curriculum (Korean Ministry of Education, 1997), which limits class contents and textbooks. The other 12 (3 males and 9 females; henceforth the enhanced extensive reading instruction group/EERI) took enhanced extensive reading lessons after class in addition to the regular instruction. The term ‘enhanced extensive reading instruction (EERI)’ was used to denote an instruction that employed various output activities after extensive reading in order to enhance students’ reading comprehension and acquisition of prepositions. Hence, in this study EERI was distinguished from ‘extensive reading instruc-tion,’ which only involves reading. A detailed explanation of the characteristics of EERI is described in the next section. All participants had at least four years of formal English education. Based on their scores on a standardized language achievement test, they had an intermediate level of English. To ascertain that participants’ initial knowledge of preposi-tion use was at a similar level for both groups, the groups’ scores on the pre-test were tested for significant differences after checking for violations of normality in the data set and confirming the homogeneity of variance between the groups (Levene’s test: F=.763; p>0.5). The score average for EERI was 53.67 (SD=5.14) and for RI was 52.83 (SD=3.86). Through an independent samples t-test, it was determined that there were no significant differences between these two groups’ preposition use at Week One (t (22)=.449, p>.05).

Characteristics of the Groups

RI met for 45 minutes three times a week for one semester. The course textbook con-sisted of six chapters divided into four sections: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Reading instruction focused on answering reading comprehension questions and trans-lating unknown English words from six short articles that appeared in the textbook. There was no instructional focus on prepositions.

EERI met twice a week for one hour and a half for one semester. Students were allowed to read their own English books or books from the class library, which contained approximately 150 English graded readers and English novels for young readers. There was no instructional focus on prepositions. The first half of the program (weeks 1-8) was devoted to group extensive reading. The purpose of the group extensive reading was to help beginning readers get familiar with extensive reading and build interest in reading by sharing books with their peers. Participants were divided into three groups of four depending on the genres of the books they chose to read (e.g. mystery group, adventure group). The 90-min class was divided into a one-hour sustained silent reading (SSR) activity related to the group topic followed by 30-minute moderated group discussions in which a moderator led the discussions by asking questions related to each group’s selected books and encouraging members to participate. These discussions had a double




purpose: to check on students’ reading comprehension, and to offer students opportuni-ties to internalize input from the readings. The second half of the program (weeks 9-15) was devoted to individual extensive reading, which consisted of a one-hour SSR activity on any topic followed by a 30-minute activity. Students could choose to read as many books as they wanted on any topic, but they were encouraged to read one graded reader per week as suggested by Day and Bamford (2002). If students chose to read authentic English novels, the amount of authentic books per week (20-30 pages) were considered as corresponding to the amount of one graded reader. Reading one book per week allows learners to repeat and reinforce new input (Nation and Wang, 1999). The last 30 minutes were devoted to output post-reading activities, such as pair book sharing, oral book reports, and book poster presentations as suggested in Bamford and Day (2004). In addi-tion, every week students completed a reading log and a short book report on the chapters they had read during the week. A detailed outline of the enhanced extensive reading program is in Appendix 1.

Data Sources and Analysis

Data were drawn from a background questionnaire, achievement scores from pre- and post-preposition tests, and an interview. Both the EERI and RI groups completed the background questionnaire, which was designed to gather general information about the participants (e.g. gender, age, and length of English study). Both groups also completed pre- and post-preposition tests at the beginning and end of the semester. The preposition tests consisting of three sections served as measures of acquisition of English preposi-tions, the dependent variable of the study. These tests were designed to tap into gradual improvement: from being just aware of an incorrect preposition to being able to correct it appropriately. Section 1 asked students to ‘notice’ incorrect prepositions in 10 sen-tences, and to choose ‘C’ if they thought the underlined preposition was correct, ‘I’ if they thought it was incorrect, and ‘I don’t know’ if they could not tell whether it was correct or incorrect. The third choice was included to prevent students from guessing. Section 2 measured whether students ‘knew’ the right propositions for the blanks in 30 given sentences. They were strictly asked not to write a preposition if they were not sure about the answer. Section 3 measured whether students could ‘notice’ and ‘produce’ the right prepositions in a reading passage. Students were asked to correct 11 incorrect prep-ositions out of 23. This section was more challenging than the other two because the prepositions were not identified. The sentences in the testing materials resembled some of the readings in the extensive reading program (i.e. same sentence structures with dif-ferent pronouns or proper nouns). The pre- and post-tests were identical in format so that they could be used to reveal acquisition of English prepositions over time. Proper nouns as well as the order of the questions were changed in order to prevent students from remembering the test items and, therefore, avoid a test-retest effect. Additionally, there was a significant time difference (six months) between the two tests, thus making it hard for the students to remember any items from the pre-test. Moreover, students were not aware that there would be a post-test. Tallies for each type of preposition knowledge ranged from 0–2, so students earned 0 points if they did not notice an incorrect preposi-tion, 1 point if they noticed the error but did not provide the correct form, and 2 points if




they both noticed and corrected the error. After coding, all scores were entered into SPSS and a range of descriptive and inferential statistics were computed.

The EERI group also completed a 30-minute retrospective interview after their post-preposition test. The interview was designed to measure different levels of knowledge ranging from recognizing the meaning of prepositions (i.e. being able to explain the meaning of a preposition they got right in the post-test but not in the pre-test) to the abil-ity to produce a sentence that incorporated the preposition appropriately. The purpose of this design was to examine if the participants (a) knew the meaning of a particular prepo-sition and could use it appropriately in context, (b) simply guessed its meaning, or (c) chose the preposition at random. The interview was conducted in Korean so that partici-pants could express their ideas more clearly.

Results

A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with time (pre-test and post-test) as a within-subjects factor and group (RI and EERI) as a between-subjects fac-tor indicated that the amount of preposition gains was statistically significant as a func-tion of group (F(1,22)=13.24, p<.001, partial-eta squared=.376) and as a function of time (F(1,22)=431.31, p<.001, partial-eta squared=.951). It should be noted that there was a significant interaction between time and group (F(1,22)=339.35, p<.001, partial-eta squared=.939), which indicated that the two groups performed differently over time, with the increase being stronger in the EERI group.

Due to the small sample size, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests were computed to exam-ine significant differences between pre- and post-tests. As Table 1 shows, RI exhibited a 1 percentage point increase in English preposition use on the post-test. This increase was statistically significant (Z=2.33, p<.05), which suggested that the students could inciden-tally learn English prepositions through the regular instruction received at school. In contrast, EERI exhibited an increase of 15 percentage points in preposition use on the post-test. This difference was also statistically significant (Z=3.08, p<.05).

To identify gains in different levels of preposition knowledge, we examined students’ changes in each section of the preposition test. Section 1 asked if a learner had familiarity with the target preposition and noticed the incorrect preposition in a sentence. Section 2 asked if a learner noticed the incorrect preposition and knew the right preposition for an

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Wilcoxon Test of Difference Between Pre- and Post-test Scores in the RI and EERI Group.

Group Pre-test Post-test Z (Post-pre)

Mean (SD) Accuracya Mean (SD) Accuracya

RI (n=12) 52.83 (3.86) 57.4% 53.67 (4.10) 58.3% 2.33*EERI (n=12) 53.67 (1.31) 58.34% 67.59 (1.59) 73.47% 3.08*

Note: The total possible score was 92.aAccuracy percent.*p < .05.




incorrect one in a sentence. Section 3 asked if a learner not only noticed but also pro-duced a correct preposition in a passage. In order to determine the strength of the inter-vention on each section of the preposition test, we calculated effect sizes using the formula for effect sizes for Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests (Corder and Foreman, 2009). Given that Cohen’s effect size guidelines are general and applicable to many effect sizes, we followed Cohen’s (1988) conventions for effect size. An effect size of .10 is small, .30 is medium, and .50 is large.

As Table 2 indicates, RI showed statistically significant improvement (9 percentage points) on the first section of the test (Z=2.81, p<.05) with a large effect size (r=.81), which suggested that the students could notice more incorrect prepositions in the post-test. However, RI scores decreased (-0.1 percentage point) on the second section (Z=1.00, p>.05, r=.29) and exhibited no change (0 percentage point) on the third section (Z=.000, p=1, r=0). These results indicated that, although RI could incidentally acquire English prepositions through traditional instruction, the level of improvement was limited to noticing preposition use. Contrary to RI, EERI showed statistically significant increase with large effect sizes in all three sections (section 1: Z=2.91, p<.05, r=.84; section 2: Z=3.10, p<.05, r=.89; Section 3: Z=3.09, p<.05, r=.89). The increase in Section 1 was slightly above 11 percentage points, in Section 2 was 13 percentage points, and in Section 3 was 22 percentage points.

Responses to the retrospective interviews provided evidence for five factors contrib-uting to the acquisition of English prepositions in the EERI group: increased reading comprehension, increased vocabulary knowledge, frequent encounters of prepositions in meaningful contexts, increased intuition for preposition use, and opportunities to use the newly taken input into output activities.

First, students (67%) repeatedly commented that they could not answer the right prep-osition in the pre-test because they did not know or could not understand some of the words in the sentence. In contrast, at the end of the semester, they felt they could identify more correct prepositions because it was easier for them to understand the sentences. For example, one student said: ‘I didn’t know if this preposition was correct or incorrect

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Wilcoxon Test of Difference Between Pre- and Post-test Scores on Tech Type of Preposition Knowledge in the RI and EERI Group.

Group Preposition knowledge type

Pre-test Post-test Z (Post-pre-)

Mean (SD) Accuracya Mean (SD) Accuracya

RI Notice 8.00 (0.60) 80% 8.92 (0.66) 89% 2.81*Notice +Know 38.67 (2.46) 64.4% 38.58 (2.57) 64.3% 1Notice+Produce 6.17 (1.47) 28% 6.17 (1.64) 28% 0

EERI Notice 8.25 (0.75) 82.5% 9.33 (0.49) 93.3% 2.91*Notice+Know 38.67 (3.65) 64.45% 46.67 (4.61) 77.78% 3.10*Notice+Produce 6.75 (1.76) 30.68% 11.59 (2.50) 52.68% 3.09*

Note: The total possible score for each section was 10, 60, and 22, respectively.aAccuracy percent.*p < .05.




because I didn’t understand the meaning of the sentence. But I know what it [the sen-tence] means now, so I can tell if this [preposition] is correct or not.’ Students’ self-reports revealed that increased reading comprehension skills helped students figure out the correct prepositions in the post-test.

Second, some students (58%) attributed higher scores on the post-test to increased vocabulary knowledge. For example, one student commented regarding a sentence in the pre-test: ‘I didn’t know this word, so I didn’t know what to write next to this word.’ Comments such as this suggest that students’ increased vocabulary knowledge helped them understand the sentence better, which then allowed them to identify the right prepo-sition for that particular sentence.

Third, most students (91%) improved in the use of frequently encountered preposi-tions, such as location prepositions (on the floor, in front of school). Since location prepo-sitions appear often in readings, students had many chances to learn them. Students commented, ‘I got it right here because “in” is always used in front of location phrases’ or ‘I know it is “in” because I saw it a lot.’ In contrast, students showed less uptake for items that did not frequently appear in the texts, such as particular grammatical colloca-tions (e.g. in terror) or phrasal verbs (e.g. clean up).

Fourth, students’ responses (91%) revealed that the students had increased intuition for preposition use. When they were asked why they changed a preposition in the post-test, they could not account for the changes but simply replied, ‘I don’t know why I wrote “for” in the “for the rest of my life” for sure. Maybe I saw this phrase in the text. But I wrote down “for” because it just sounds right.’ Another student replied ‘I don’t know why I put “in” for the sentence “he froze in terror.” It just sounds good.’ Even though they could not explain the specific grammar rules, or identify the phrases as collocations, they seemed to have gradually acquired the use of that language feature through natural exposure.

Finally, given that a large amount of input and production activities were provided in the extensive reading program, it is plausible that students had abundant opportunities to encounter vocabulary items with prepositions (i.e. collocations) frequently in contexts. It is also possible that engaging in group discussions prior to having to present oral book reports individually could have increased their ability and confidence to use more com-plex sentences in their oral presentations. Opportunities for extensive reading and forced output with increasing levels of linguistic difficulty could have facilitated the acquisition of certain vocabulary words and, ultimately, the acquisition of the prepositions that should accompany the new words.

Discussion

Although it is difficult to produce a true experimental setting in a classroom (Grabe, 2004), the setting for this study and the controls enforced increase the reliability of its findings. The study took place in a foreign language classroom, where learners’ involve-ment with the target language was limited to the language class. Therefore, any gains in incidental preposition knowledge and use were likely to result from either the regular instruction or the enhanced extensive reading instruction, or both.

The results of the study suggest that the students attending regular instruction could increase their ability to notice wrong prepositions in a sentence by almost a 1 percentage




point. However, changes in their ability to both notice and correct wrong prepositions in a sentence or a passage did not change significantly. In contrast, the group of students receiving additional enhanced extensive reading improved their ability to notice wrong prepositions in a sentence by 11 percentage points, to correct and notice prepositions in a sentence by 13 percentage points, and to notice and correct wrong prepositions in a passage by 22 percentage points. It could be argued that because the after-school enhanced extensive reading instruction was additional to the regular school instruction, it is not surprising that EERI outperformed RI. Yet, the purpose of this study was to see to what extent the two instructional conditions contributed to incidental gains in preposi-tion use. RI’s improvement in preposition knowledge was limited to noticing incorrect prepositions in a sentence. In contrast, EERI showed improvements in not only noticing the incorrect prepositions but also producing appropriate prepositions in a passage.

These results provide evidence suggesting the positive effects of enhanced extensive reading on the incidental acquisition of preposition knowledge. This finding is consistent with studies that investigated the benefits of extensive reading for incidental acquisition of vocabulary (Cho and Krashen, 1994; Nishino, 2007; Pigada and Schmitt, 2006) or grammatical competence (Elley and Mangubhai, 1983; Sheu, 2003; Tudor and Hafiz, 1989). Yet, to our knowledge, our study is the first that has shown incidental acquisition with a specific focus (English prepositions) using a direct and sensitive measurement for acquisition. Given that English prepositions are difficult to master (Bitchener et al., 2005), EERI’s 15 percentage points increase on the post-test seems remarkable. These results do not indicate that the prepositions were fully mastered, though. However, if we take the stance that language learning is incremental in nature and any movement towards mastery is valuable, the results are promising.

These findings also lend support to Min’s (2008) and Rott’s (1999) claim that reading plus activities leads to more incidental gains in both receptive and productive knowl-edge. It is possible that the enhanced extensive reading activities contributed to EERI’s improvement in higher levels of preposition knowledge. Prepositions are function words with little impact on meaning and may often be ignored in input processing. The output activities after reading extensively seem to have enabled the learners to have more opportunities to undergo a deeper mental processing of prepositions, which is in line with Gass (1988) and Swain’s (2005) claims regarding the benefits of engaging in ouput activities. Thus, although RI showed a small increase in noticing incorrect prepositions, they failed to demonstrate their ability to produce the prepositions in the second and third sections of the post-test. In contrast, it is possible that EERI could internalize some of the prepositions that they encountered through reading plus activities, which might have helped them not only notice unknown prepositions, but also correct them and produce them in appropriate contexts.

The interview data suggested five factors that could have affected the acquisition: increased reading comprehension, increased vocabulary knowledge, frequent encounters of prepositions in meaningful contexts, increased intuition for preposition use, and opportunities to use the newly taken input in output activities. Although students’ reading comprehension and vocabulary growth was not measured through achievement tests, these interviews provided valuable information on students’ actual knowledge, as the interviewer asked them to explain verbally the meaning of the grammar collocations and




vocabulary words accompanying the prepositions in the test. Since the choice of preposi-tions is decided by the intended meaning of the sentence and words that precede or fol-low them (e.g. grammatical collocations), it is not surprising that increased reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge ultimately translated into increased gram-matical knowledge of prepositions.

It is also possible that frequent encounters with prepositions in various contexts posi-tively affected students’ acquisition of prepositions. Language learning is not a one-time affair. Therefore, it is unrealistic to believe that a learner would master a preposition or a grammatical collocation upon a first encounter with it. It takes frequent encounters for an item to be noticed and internalized gradually (Rott, 1999). The students had enough opportunities to meet prepositions in different contexts over the 15-week extensive read-ing program. Since these frequent encounters were within their linguistic competence (the program used leveled readers), this input was accessible for them to transform it to intake. This finding is consistent with studies that have shown vocabulary gains through frequency of exposure (Brown et al., 2008; Rott, 1999). Just as frequent encounters of vocabulary resulted in vocabulary acquisition, frequent encounters with prepositions might have contributed to the acquisition of prepositions.

Enough input was a crucial factor for acquisition; however, it seemed that acquisition was facilitated by the incorporation of output activities implemented in the 30 minutes following the SSR. These activities naturally required students to use prepositions in context. For example, students were asked to describe chapter scenes, which naturally required them to make sentences such as this: ‘This scene takes place in Juliet’s bed-room. She is having a fight with her brother because he did not take care of her dog.’ Hence, this study supported other studies (Laufer, 2003; Min, 2008; Paribakht and Wesche, 1996, 1997; Zimmerman, 1997) that showed superiority of reading plus output activities on incidental acquisition.

Finally, the EERI group reported that at the beginning of the program they could not properly grasp the meaning of the sentences and, as a result, they could neither tell if the preposition used in the sentence was appropriate nor change it to a correct form. However, by the end of the program, they felt that they could understand the meaning of the sen-tences better, which might explain why they could correct more wrong prepositions. Yet, most were still unable to explain their correct answers in the post-test. Language acquisi-tion theory might explain this inability. According to the input hypothesis (Krashen, 1982), acquisition refers to the unconscious development of a language through expo-sure. It later becomes implicit linguistic knowledge, which is the internalized knowledge that the learner can use to produce language automatically without thinking about gram-matical rules (Bialystok, 1978). The students seemed to have acquired the use of preposi-tions through natural and constant exposure from reading a large amount of books and participating in output activities. That is, their knowledge of prepositions became implicit, making it hard for them to clearly explain the grammar rules that govern the specific use of prepositions.

Language instructors considering implementing extensive reading activities in their curriculum should take into account several aspects of extensive reading that seem to have contributed to the effectiveness of the extensive reading program under study. First and foremost, following Day and Bamford (1998), the students were provided with a variety




of materials on a wide range of topics and were allowed to select reading materials accord-ing to their own interests. Second, the students were encouraged to read materials that were well within their reading comfort zones (Bamford and Day, 1997). Third, because different publishing companies use different standards when categorizing their books’ reading levels (for example, Penguin level 2 is not equivalent to Oxford level 2) and some authentic materials can be more difficult to read than others, the instructor reorganized the class library in order to help students find the right books for them. Fourth, group exten-sive reading and discussion activities were implemented during the first weeks of the program in order to familiarize students with extensive reading activities and create a cooperative learning environment through peer scaffolding. Finally, students produced output through various activities, such as group discussions, oral book reports, and indi-vidual book presentations. Although replication studies including these aspects of the extensive reading program are needed to corroborate the findings, it can be gleaned from the results that it is very likely that the students built their linguistic knowledge of syntac-tic structures, words, and preposition use as well as their confidence in reading partly because of the characteristics of the program—i.e. because (a) they read books that they could understand and that they liked; (b) they had opportunities to receive feedback and support from peers; (c) they shared their views of what they read with peers; and (d) their active and collaborative engagement in the reading process made reading more fun.

Due to its small sample size and focus on English prepositions, the study results may not be generalizable to larger ESL or EFL populations, or the incidental acquisition of other linguistic forms in English. Also, without delayed post-tests, it is not possible to measure long-time retention. Another limitation is that students’ retrospective self-reports may not be accurate. It is possible, for example, that students think they acquired a certain preposi-tion because they think they frequently encountered it in texts when they might have sim-ply acquired the preposition because it was easy to learn. Future research could avoid these limitations by employing random group assignments, additional measurements for reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge development, delayed post-tests, and frequency measurements for prepositions and their acquisition rate. A possible avenue of future research is to compare the results by gender or to a group receiving explicit instruction on English prepositions. Scholars should also investigate the effect of extensive reading on linguistic development in a broader sense and for other linguistic features.

Conclusion

The beneficial effects of extensive reading have been widely investigated. However, this study extends our knowledge of these effects by providing evidence suggesting that enhanced extensive reading instruction might lead to greater gains on incidental acquisi-tion of English prepositions. Benefits such as increased reading comprehension and vocabulary, frequent encounters with prepositions in meaningful contexts, and opportu-nities for output (i.e. opportunities to use the newly taken input and transform it into intake) were found to contribute positively to the acquisition of prepositions. Although it might be possible that explicit grammar instruction might swiftly facilitate acquisition of new linguistic knowledge by drawing direct attention to the target forms, it is not possi-ble to teach all prepositions and exceptions to their use in an already crowded language




class. Enhanced extensive reading could be an option for language practitioners. It is ‘pedagogically efficient’ (Huckin and Coady, 1999: 182) because it helps to develop reading fluency and general reading skills as well as to acquire linguistic forms inciden-tally. It also provides learners with opportunities to encounter grammatical items, such as English prepositions, in a contextualized manner. Extensive reading could be incorpo-rated not at the expense of current direct reading and grammar instruction, but in con-junction with or as supplementary to other approaches.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Hye Jin Jung for her insightful comments and contribution in designing the extensive reading program for the study and Eunseok Ro for his help with the pilot design.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Ahranjani AK, Shadi M (2012) Input enhancement and EFL learners’ collocation acquisition. International Journal of Academic Research 4(1): 96–101.

Amiryousefi M, Kassaian Z (2010) The effects of reading only vs. reading plus enhancement activities on vocabulary learning and production of Iranian pre-university students. [Report]. English Language Teaching 3(2): 94–98.

Bamford J, Day R (2004) Extensive Reading Activities for Teaching Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bamford J, Day R (1997) Extensive reading: What is it? Why bother? The Language Teacher 21(5): 6–8.

Bell TI (2001) Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal 1(1).

Bialystok E (1978) The Teaching and Learning of French as a Second Language in Two Distinct Learning Settings. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Bitchener J, Young S, and Cameron D (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3): 191–205.

Brown R, Waring R, and Donkaewbua S (2008) Incidental vocabulary acquisition from read-ing, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2): 136–63.

Cho KS, Krashen SD (1994) Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids series: adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading 37(8): 662–67.

Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Corder G, Foreman D (2009) Nonparametric Statistics for Non-statisticians: A Step-by-step Approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Day R, Bamford J (2002) Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 14(2).

Day R, Bamford J (1998) Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press.

Day R, Omura C, and Hiramatsu M (1992) Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 7(2): 541.




Elley WB (1991) Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning 41(3): 375–411.

Elley WB, Mangubhai F (1983) The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly 19(1): 53–67.

Gass S (1988) Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics 9: 198–217.

Grabe W (2004) Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 44–69.Hafiz F, Tudor I (1990) Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System 18(1): 31–42.Hayashi K (1999) Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL classes. RELC Journal 30(2):

114–32.Huckin T, Coady J (1999) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 21(02) 181–93.Hulstijn JH, Hollander M, and Greidanus T (1996) Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced

foreign language students: the influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal 80(3): 327–39.

Korean Ministry of Education (1997) The 7th National Curriculm [Document]. Available at: http://english.mest.go.kr/enMain.do

Krashen SD (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford; New York: Pergamon.

Krashen SD (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London and New York: Longman.

Lai FK (1993) The effects of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills. System 21(1): 87–100.

Laufer B (2000) Electronic Dictionaries and Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Does Technology Make a Difference? In: EURALEX, Stuttgart.

Laufer B (2003) Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review 59(4): 567–87.

Lee W (2011) Views and experiences of English language education for young learners in South Korea: has Korea government achieved its goal in introducing English language to public primary school? Asian EFL Journal 56: 16-29.

Levin B (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

Min HT (2008) EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning 58(1): 73–115.

Nation P, Wang KM (1999) Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language 12: 355–80.

Nishino T (2007) Beginning to read extensively: a case study with Mako and Fumi. Reading in a Foreign Language 19(2): 76–105.

Paribakht TS, Wesche M (1996) Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: a hierarchy of text-related exercise types. Canadian Modern Language Review 52(2): 155–78.

Paribakht TS, Wesche M (1997) Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In: Coady J, Huckin T (eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 174–200.

Paribakht TS, Wesche M (1999) Reading and ‘incidental’ L2 vocabulary acquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(02):195–224.

Pica T (1994) Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second-language learning condi-tions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning 44(3): 493–527.




Pigada M, Schmitt N (2006) Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: a case study. Reading in a Foreign Language 18(1): 1–28.

Rott S (1999) The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(04): 589–619.

Schmidt R (1994) Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguis-tics. AILA Review 11: 11–26.

Sheu SPH (2003) Extensive reading with EFL learners at beginning level. TESL Reporter 36: 8–26.

Shintani N, Ellis R (2011) The incidental acquisition of English plural–s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(04): 607–37.

Swain M (2005) The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Tudor I, Hafiz F (1989) Extensive reading as a means of input to L2 learning. Journal of Research

in Reading 12(2): 164–78.Zimmerman CB (1997) Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference?An

empirical study. TESOL Quarterly 31(1): 121–40.

1st class 2nd class

Week 1(Book 1)

Each group chose books for the group to read.

-Selection of books- Selection of reading groups

-SSR-Moderated group discussion-Vocabulary log

Week 2(Book 1)

-SSR- Moderated discussion

-SSR-Moderated group discussion-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 3(Book 2)

-SSR- Moderated group discussion

-SSR-Moderated group discussion-Vocabulary log

Week 4(Book 2)


-SSR-Moderated group discussion-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 5(Book 3)


-SSR-Vocabulary log

Week 6(Book 3)

-SSR- Playwriting for group presentation

-SSR- Group book presentation (Drama)

-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 7(Book 4)


-SSR- Presenting graphic organizer of the book (Story map)

-Vocabulary log

(Continued)

Appendix 1. The Enhanced Extensive Reading Program.




Appendix 2

Language Assessment

If the underlined preposition is correct, write C. If the underlined preposition is incorrect, write I.

1. Myron got out of his chair and sat in the floor. 2. It was so crowded by kids rushing to recess that he couldn’t stop if he wanted. 3. The sound of the footsteps continued for a second, then stopped. 4. It was dark to Myron to see who was following him, but he realized that meant

that the person couldn’t see him, either. 5. He bent down, then untied and took off his right sneaker. 6. ‘You’ll have to go inside when it rains,’ said the other man on a mustache.

1st class 2nd class

Week 8(Book 4)

-SSR- Group book sharing(Jigsaw)

-SSR- Presenting graphic organizer of the book(Story map)

-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 9(Book 5)

Each learner chose his/her own book to read.

-SSR-Interview a character

-SSR-Vocabulary log-Reading log-Drawing a cartoon

Week 10(Book 6)

-SSR- One person’s view of another

-SSR-A Different Ending-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 11(Book 7)

-SSR- What does the future hold?

-SSR-Predicting Activities

Week 12(Book 8)

-SSR- Predicting content from title

-SSR-Pair book-sharing-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 13(Book 9)

-SSR-My book from A-Z

-SSR-Book poster presentation-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 14(Book 10)

-SSR-Favorite quotation

-SSR-Book poster presentation-Vocabulary log-Reading log

Week 15(Book 10)

-SSR-Portfolio making

-Portfolio exhibition-The Best Reader evaluation

Appendix 1. (Continued)




7. Myron looked at the three men. 8. The first time someone got on trouble, he had to write his name on the blackboard

under the word DISCIPLINE. 9. She hopped off the bike on front of Barton School and charged up the stairs.10. She hated prune juice more than anything by the world.

Fill in the blanks with a suitable preposition

1. There were pencils and pieces _______ paper everywhere. 2. It wasn’t his job to pick ______ the garbage. 3. He signed. Then began cleaning it _________. 4. He loved all the children _______ Barton School. 5. A short man with big, bushy hair stepped out _______ the truck. 6. Barton School was thirty stories high, with only one room ____ each story. 7. He stepped easily ______ the eighteenth story ______ the twentieth. 8. ______ last he struggled up the final step to the thirtieth story. 9. He knocked _______ Mrs. Jewls door _______ his head.10. So Louis held the box as Mrs. Jewls stood on a chair next him and tore open the

top.11. ‘Get that piece ______ junk out of here,’ said Maurecia.12. Louis set the computer ______ the counter behind Sharie’s desk.13. Then, he collapsed ________ the floor.14. I drop all the cucumbers ______ brine and take them to the kitchen.15. ‘Could you write the question ______ the board, please?’ asked Rondi.16. _________ a mocking voice she said, ‘Could you answer the question, please?’17. She picked ______ the vat ______ brine from her desk.18. I’m going to dump this______ your head.19. Leslie quickly tried to count _____ her fingers but she didn’t have enough.20. What is the capital _______ England?21. Paul froze ________ terror.22. They sat ______ on the grass to eat their lunches, but then Maurecia remembered

she needed chocolate milk.23. Joy’s eyes got bigger head when she looked the paper bag.24. It was stuffed _______ dollar bills.25. You’ll get _______ trouble.26. You’ll go to jail ______ the rest of your life.27. She believed ______dreams.28. Everyone was still waiting _________ the wonderful news.29. I’d rather dance ______ a dead rat!30. She was tired ______getting hurt.

Find 10 wrong prepositions and correct them

Allison was still by the nineteenth story. The desks were arranged on clusters of four. Allison sat at a cluster in a girl named Virginia, a boy named Nick, and a boy named Ray. But Virginia looked old enough for be her mother. And Nick looked like he should be on




high school. Ray was a couple of years younger than Allison. ‘Miss Zarves is a wonder-ful teacher,’ said Virginia on a singsong voice. ‘She’s the nicest teacher I ever had.’ ‘She’s the only teacher you ever had,’ said Nick. ‘So? She’s still nice,’ said Virginia. ‘I’ve always gotten all A’s.’ ‘Aren’t you a little old for be going at school?’ Allison asked her. ‘You’re never old to learn,’ said Virginia. ‘No one ever leaves Miss Zarves’s class,’ said Nick. ‘How long have you been here, Virginia?’ Virginia thought a moment. ‘Thirty-two wonderful years.’ ‘I’ve been here nine years,’ said Nick. ‘But she always gives us good grades,’ said Virginia. ‘That’s true,’ Nick agreed. ‘I’ve gotten all A’s since I’ve been here too.’ ‘Me too,’ said Ray. ‘And sometimes I answer all the problems wrong by purpose!’ ‘Where were you before you came here?’ Allison asked him. ‘I went to, um, I was…’ Ray shook his head. ‘That’s funny, I don’t remember.’ ‘I don’t remember where I came, either,’ said Virginia. ‘Well, I do!’ said Allison. ‘I was in…’ But suddenly she couldn’t remember either. Then it came on her. ‘Mrs. Jewls’s class! And Rondi was by the class, and Jason, and Dana, and Todd…’ She named every member of the class, including all three Erics. She didn’t want to forget her hometown. If I forget where I was from, I might never get back, she thought.



relc journal 2014 song 67 84

Documents