Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Development of
Grammatical CarefulnessGrammatical Carefulness
in English as a Foreign
Language:
A Comparison among Univers...
Outline
• What is Grammatical Carefulness?
• Grammatical Carefulness Scale• Grammatical Carefulness Scale
(GCS)
• Research...
Kunihiro KUSANAGI
Junya FUKUTA
Graduate School, Nagoya University
JSPS Research Fellow
Contact to:
kusanagi@nagoya-u.jp
Yu...
What is
Grammatical Carefulness?
What is Grammatical Carefulness?
• L2 learners’ grammatical
performanceperformance
– Variant
– Inconsistent
– Complex
– Si...
What is Grammatical Carefulness?
• Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off
(Dennis & Evans, 1996; Goldhammer & Kroehne, 2014; van der Lin...
Speed Accuracy Trade-Off and Individual Differences (Kusanagi et al, 2014)Accuracy
The slower, the more accurate
Speed
Acc...
What is Grammatical Carefulness?
• Inter-Learner Variance in
Speed-Accuracy Trade-OffSpeed-Accuracy Trade-Off
– Steady wit...
What is Grammatical Carefulness?
• Grammatical Carefulness
–Proposed by Kusanagi et al. (2014)–Proposed by Kusanagi et al....
Grammatical
Carefulness Scale
Grammatical Carefulness Scale
• GCS, Japanese Version (GCSJ)
• A questionnaire• A questionnaire
– Kusanagi et al. (2014)
–...
Grammatical Carefulness Scale
• Pragmatic Carefulness
– k = 5– k = 5
– e.g., I always think about the appropriateness of t...
Grammatical Carefulness Scale
• Factorial validity supported
– By both exploratory and confirmatory FAs– By both explorato...
ResearchResearch
QuestionsQuestions
Research Questions
• The present study attempts to
reveal…reveal…
– The developmental processes of grammatical
carefulness...
The PresentThe Present
StudyStudy
The Present Study
• Data correction
– Participants(n = 2,269)– Participants(n = 2,269)
– Shared with Kusanagi et al. (2014...
The Present Study
• Data analysis
– Basically, we compared the mean scale– Basically, we compared the mean scale
points of...
Results &Results &
DiscussionDiscussion
Before Comparisons…
Reliability Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological
Junior High 0.87 0.86 0.91
High 0.85 0.88 0.93
Un...
Before Comparisons…
Reliability Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological
Junior High 0.87 0.86 0.91
High 0.85 0.88 0.93
Un...
Before Comparisons…
Reliability Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological
Junior High 0.87 0.86 0.91
High 0.85 0.88 0.93
Un...
Comparisons
PLSPH
Junior High School Students (n = 261)
Subscales
6
7
Pragmatic
Lexical-Syntactic
Phonological 1 2 3 4 5 6...
Comparisons
PLSPH
Junior High School Students (n = 261)
Subscales
6
7
Pragmatic
Lexical-Syntactic
Phonological 1 2 3 4 5 6...
Comparisons
d [CI] Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological
Junior High - High 0.21 [0.07, 0.35] 0.25 [0.11, 0.39] 0.29 [0...
Clustering
6
7
Junior High 1
2
3
4
5
MeanScore
Junior High 1
Junior High 2
Junior High 3
High 1
High 2
High 3
Univ. 1
Univ...
Results and Discussion
• Summary
– Japanese EFL learners tend to become– Japanese EFL learners tend to become
less careful...
Results and Discussion
• Grammatical Carefulness, Speed-
Accuracy Trade-Off, and L2Accuracy Trade-Off, and L2
Development
...
Model
Accuracy
Speed
Conclusion
• Limitations and Future Studies
– This study was cross-sectional,– This study was cross-sectional,
longitudina...
References --1
• Dennis, I., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). The speed-error trade-off problem in
psychometric testing. Brit...
References --2
• Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study abroad, language proficiency, and learner
beliefs about language le...
Developmentof
GrammaticalCarefulness
inEnglishasaForeignLanguage:
A Comparison among University, High School, and Junior H...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Development of grammatical carefulness paal2014

922 views

Published on

Kusanagi, K., Fukuta, J., Kawaguchi, Y., Tamura, Y., Goto, A., Kurita, A., & Murota, D. (2014, to appear). Development of grammatical carefulness in English as a foreign language: A Comparison among university, high school, and junior high school students in Japan. The 19th PAAL Conference (PAAL 2014). Waseda University, Japan.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Development of grammatical carefulness paal2014

  1. 1. Development of Grammatical CarefulnessGrammatical Carefulness in English as a Foreign Language: A Comparison among University, High School, and Junior High School Students in Japan at PAAL2014 2014/8/19 Waseda University, Japan
  2. 2. Outline • What is Grammatical Carefulness? • Grammatical Carefulness Scale• Grammatical Carefulness Scale (GCS) • Research Questions • The Present Study • Results & Discussion• Results & Discussion • Conclusion
  3. 3. Kunihiro KUSANAGI Junya FUKUTA Graduate School, Nagoya University JSPS Research Fellow Contact to: kusanagi@nagoya-u.jp Yusaku KAWAGUCHI Yu TAMURA Aki GOTO Akari KURITAAkari KURITA Daisuke MUROTA Graduate School, Nagoya University
  4. 4. What is Grammatical Carefulness?
  5. 5. What is Grammatical Carefulness? • L2 learners’ grammatical performanceperformance – Variant – Inconsistent – Complex – Situation-dependent • Depends on What?• Depends on What? – Proficiency – Task-related factors – Individual differences
  6. 6. What is Grammatical Carefulness? • Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off (Dennis & Evans, 1996; Goldhammer & Kroehne, 2014; van der Linden,(Dennis & Evans, 1996; Goldhammer & Kroehne, 2014; van der Linden, 2007, 2009) – Accurate when one can take enough time – Less accurate when one is speeded →→→→This may explain a large part of the variance!
  7. 7. Speed Accuracy Trade-Off and Individual Differences (Kusanagi et al, 2014)Accuracy The slower, the more accurate Speed Accuracy Accuracy Less accurate when speeded Speed Accuracy Speed The functions change
  8. 8. What is Grammatical Carefulness? • Inter-Learner Variance in Speed-Accuracy Trade-OffSpeed-Accuracy Trade-Off – Steady within a learner – May be strongly linked to some psychological, behavioral, and meta- cognitive factors • Types of motivation, aptitude, beliefs, strategies,• Types of motivation, aptitude, beliefs, strategies, confidence and anxiety… (cf. Karcheva & Amaar, 2014; Kormos, 1996, Loewen et al., 2009)
  9. 9. What is Grammatical Carefulness? • Grammatical Carefulness –Proposed by Kusanagi et al. (2014)–Proposed by Kusanagi et al. (2014) –A construct in a psychometric sense • by definition refers to a behavioral, psychological, and meta-cognitive characteristic of language learners,characteristic of language learners, which typically entails highly controlled, cautious, analytical, and sometimes time-consuming language use.
  10. 10. Grammatical Carefulness Scale
  11. 11. Grammatical Carefulness Scale • GCS, Japanese Version (GCSJ) • A questionnaire• A questionnaire – Kusanagi et al. (2014) – Composed of 14 items – Written in Japanese – Validated using factor analyses with– Validated using factor analyses with a large sample size of Japanese English learners (n < 2000)
  12. 12. Grammatical Carefulness Scale • Pragmatic Carefulness – k = 5– k = 5 – e.g., I always think about the appropriateness of the expression. • Lexical-Syntactic Carefulness – k = 4 – e.g., I always notice the mistakes of the spelling of words. • Phonological Carefulness – k = 5 – e.g., I always listen carefully to the pronunciations of others.
  13. 13. Grammatical Carefulness Scale • Factorial validity supported – By both exploratory and confirmatory FAs– By both exploratory and confirmatory FAs • Showed high reliability (almost α = .90) for each subscale • Content validity supported – In total 10 linguists judged that the items actually referred to the aspects (pragmatic, lexical-syntactic, and phonological) in linguistic terms • Criterion-based validity supported• Criterion-based validity supported – Correlated to “analytical beliefs” (Tanaka & Ellis, 2003) more strongly than “empirical beliefs” – All the subscales successfully predicted the accuracy of GJTs and a C-test and time to complete the C-test
  14. 14. ResearchResearch QuestionsQuestions
  15. 15. Research Questions • The present study attempts to reveal…reveal… – The developmental processes of grammatical carefulness of Japanese learners of English as a foreign language – How is grammatical carefulness of learners different among junior high school, high-school,different among junior high school, high-school, and university students? – What types of learners are there in terms of their grammatical carefulness?
  16. 16. The PresentThe Present StudyStudy
  17. 17. The Present Study • Data correction – Participants(n = 2,269)– Participants(n = 2,269) – Shared with Kusanagi et al. (2014) • 11 universities(n = 850) • 2 high schools(n = 1,158) • 2 junior high schools (n = 261) – Composition of the questionnaire– Composition of the questionnaire • Face Sheet • The items of GJSJ (k = 15) – Seven-point Rikert scales
  18. 18. The Present Study • Data analysis – Basically, we compared the mean scale– Basically, we compared the mean scale points of three types of carefulness among junior high, high school, university students • Descriptive statistics for the scale points of individuals • Visualizations • Standardized mean differences (d)• Standardized mean differences (d) • Confidence interval estimations for means and ds • Didn’t employ statistical hypothesis testing – Cluster Analyses
  19. 19. Results &Results & DiscussionDiscussion
  20. 20. Before Comparisons… Reliability Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological Junior High 0.87 0.86 0.91 High 0.85 0.88 0.93 Univ. 0.87 0.89 0.92Univ. 0.87 0.89 0.92 P 1 3 5 7 0.74 1357 0.72 57 LS 0.66 Junior High School Students P 1 3 5 7 0.76 1357 0.68 57 LS 0.64 High School Students P 1 3 5 0.76 1357 0.64 5 LS 0.59 University Students 13 0.66 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH 13 0.64 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH 13 0.59 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH
  21. 21. Before Comparisons… Reliability Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological Junior High 0.87 0.86 0.91 High 0.85 0.88 0.93 Univ. 0.87 0.89 0.92Univ. 0.87 0.89 0.92 P 1 3 5 7 0.74 1357 0.72 57 LS 0.66 Junior High School Students P 1 3 5 7 0.76 1357 0.68 57 LS 0.64 High School Students P 1 3 5 0.76 1357 0.64 5 LS 0.59 University Students 13 0.66 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH 13 0.64 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH 13 0.59 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH
  22. 22. Before Comparisons… Reliability Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological Junior High 0.87 0.86 0.91 High 0.85 0.88 0.93 Univ. 0.87 0.89 0.92Univ. 0.87 0.89 0.92 P 1 3 5 7 0.74 1357 0.72 57 LS 0.66 Junior High School Students P 1 3 5 7 0.76 1357 0.68 57 LS 0.64 High School Students P 1 3 5 0.76 1357 0.64 5 LS 0.59 University Students 13 0.66 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH 13 0.64 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH 13 0.59 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1357 PH
  23. 23. Comparisons PLSPH Junior High School Students (n = 261) Subscales 6 7 Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High School Students (n = 1158) Subscales 1 2 3 4 5 ScalePoint Phonological Score PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 University Students (n = 850) Score Subscales 1 Junior High High Univ. Junior High High Univ. Junior High High Univ. Groups
  24. 24. Comparisons PLSPH Junior High School Students (n = 261) Subscales 6 7 Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High School Students (n = 1158) Subscales 1 2 3 4 5 ScalePoint Phonological Score PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 University Students (n = 850) Score Subscales 1 Junior High High Univ. Junior High High Univ. Junior High High Univ. Groups
  25. 25. Comparisons d [CI] Pragmatic Lexical-Syntactic Phonological Junior High - High 0.21 [0.07, 0.35] 0.25 [0.11, 0.39] 0.29 [0.15, 0.43] Junior High - Univ. 0.44 [0.30, 0.58] 0.48 [0.34, 0.62] 0.42 [0.28, 0.56] High - Univ. 0.26 [0.17, 0.35] 0.26 [0.17, 0.35] 0.16 [0.07, 0.25]High - Univ. 0.26 [0.17, 0.35] 0.26 [0.17, 0.35] 0.16 [0.07, 0.25] 0.00.20.4 Pragmatic y High Junior High Univ. 0.00.20.4 Lexical-Syntactic y Univ. High Junior High. 0.00.20.4 Phonological y Univ.Junior High. -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.4-0.2 x Junior High Univ. -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.4-0.2 x High -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.4-0.2 x Univ. High Junior High.
  26. 26. Clustering 6 7 Junior High 1 2 3 4 5 MeanScore Junior High 1 Junior High 2 Junior High 3 High 1 High 2 High 3 Univ. 1 Univ. 2 1 2 P LS PH P LS PH P LS PH Subscale Univ. 2 Univ. 3
  27. 27. Results and Discussion • Summary – Japanese EFL learners tend to become– Japanese EFL learners tend to become less careful for grammar – Rather, learners are careful for grammar at the beginning of their language acquisition – There may be three types of the learners:– There may be three types of the learners: • Very careful, especially in phonology • Middle level of carefulness • Generally Less careful
  28. 28. Results and Discussion • Grammatical Carefulness, Speed- Accuracy Trade-Off, and L2Accuracy Trade-Off, and L2 Development – Grammatical carefulness is one of the inter- learner variance – However, generally, there is a tendency of learners to become less careful, parallel to thelearners to become less careful, parallel to the language development • Skill-Acquisition theory • Explicit and implicit knowledge • Automatization and resrtucturing
  29. 29. Model Accuracy Speed
  30. 30. Conclusion • Limitations and Future Studies – This study was cross-sectional,– This study was cross-sectional, longitudinal ones will be strongly desired – More on relationships between performance and grammatical carefulnesscarefulness – Further validations of the scale – Networking with other learners’ psychological and behavioral factors
  31. 31. References --1 • Dennis, I., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). The speed-error trade-off problem in psychometric testing. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 105–129. • Goldhammer, F., & Kroehne, U. (2014). Controlling individuals’ time spent on task in speeded performance measures: Experimental time limits, posterior time limits, and response time Modeling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 38, 255–267. • Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners' Beliefs as Mediators of What Is Noticed and Learned in the Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86- 109. Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction• Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behaviour of L2 learners. System, 27, 207–221. • Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104.
  32. 32. References --2 • Tanaka, K., & Ellis, R. (2003). Study abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT journal, 25, 63-85. • van der Linden, W. J. (2007). A hierarchical framework for modeling speed and accuracy on test items. Psychometrika, 73, 287–308. • van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46, 247–272.
  33. 33. Developmentof GrammaticalCarefulness inEnglishasaForeignLanguage: A Comparison among University, High School, and Junior High School Students in Japan Contact to: Kunihiro KUSANAGI Junya FUKUTA Graduate School, Nagoya University JSPS Research Fellow Contact to: kusanagi@nagoya-u.jp PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Junior High School Students (n = 261) Score Subscales 4 5 6 7 MeanScore Junior High 1 Junior High 2 Junior High 3 High1 High2 Yusaku KAWAGUCHI Yu TAMURA Aki GOTO Akari KURITA Daisuke MUROTA Graduate School, Nagoya University PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High School Students (n = 1158) Score Subscales PLSPH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 University Students (n = 850) Score Subscales 1 2 3 P LS PH P LS PH P LS PH MeanScore Subscale High3 Univ. 1 Univ. 2 Univ. 3 Speed Accuracy -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.4-0.20.00.20.4 Lexical-Syntactic x y Univ. High Junior High.

×