Contextualising learner strategy use; different languages, same strategies?

Memorisation strategies and the adolescent learner of Mandarin Chinese as a Foreign Language

Michael Grenfell (Southampton University) and Vee Harris (London University)

Rationale Importance of context but does the language studied

make any difference to the strategies used? Do students automatically transfer ‘generic’ LLS from

Roman alphabet to a non- European script or do they need some specific strategies?

If they do need other strategies, what are they? Recent interest in non-European languages but mostly

college students Exploratory study of London inner-city adolescent

beginners’ strategies for Mandarin Chinese

Why Mandarin Chinese (MC)?

LLS research- cultural imperialism (Wharton 2000)

Global economy: MC increasingly taught yet school textbooks often based on French, not linguistic features of Chinese (Zhang and Li 2010)

Eager start but students lose interest because of the difficulties (Yin 2003) and because of lack of specific LLS?

Pedagogical implications- teach specific strategies?

Research findings: the difficulties

Bo Hun (2010); difficulty of learning MC characters.

It would greatly benefit Chinese teaching studies for further research to focus on how learners tackle their perceived areas of difficulties and the kinds of learning strategies they apply.

(2010: 111)

The challenge of MC characters

No obvious phoneme/grapheme correspondence (unlike Korean).

Characters are morphemes: stand alone or combined to make words.

24 basic strokes linked in different ways to form radicals; fundamental components of characters

Radicals: can indicate the general semantic category of the character eg radical for liquid

occurs in 汤 (tāng) meaning soup and 汗 (hàn) meaning sweat.

The challenge of memorising characters

Memorisation for: Writing? Recognition? Independent production?(see Gu 2003 for overview of European VLS and depth of processing)Challenge for beginners to remember which strokes and components make up each of the characters and distinguish between them (Lee and Kalyuga 2011, Hui Li 2014) Focus of study is memorising for production of the written form of MC characters rather than the spoken form

Existing studies in memorisation strategies

Shen’s (2005) study of written word strategies quite broad eg 'I memorise the shape of the character first, then the pronunciation’ (item 32)

Study was with college students Gu (2010:114) Progression ‘as learner proficiency

improves dramatically, learning strategies for a higher level of language learning and use will need to be applied’

How does a beginner find a starting point through which to unpack the character for memorisation purposes?

甜

Same or different memorisation strategies?

Jiang and Cohen 2012: Paucity of LLS research on MC as a foreign language. Research has either used Western terminology or empirical research

Studies not concerned to distinguish generic from specific but some seem generic and some MC specific eg Shen (2005):

- Generic: ‘I classify the words into different categories according to the meaning’;

- Unique to MC: ‘I use my imagination to picture the

meaning that the character represents, as if each 甜character is a picture’

Balance of generic and MC specific for beginners and nature of processing?

Research questions

1. What are the memorisation strategies used by English adolescent learners of Mandarin Chinese in order to recognise and produce characters in written form?

2. To what extent are they generic or unique to MC?

3. What are the possible factors underlying their use of memorisation strategies? Do some imply a greater depth of processing than others?

Methodology: participants

Inner London 11-18 girls’ state school None have MC as their first language

Limited exposure to MC as also study European language to age 14:

- I hour a week age 11 - 2 hours after age 14

Native speaker teachers

Instruments

No MC language-specific questionnaires for this age group; start from scratch

Think-aloud with ten students 5 characters to memorise for a written ‘test’. Think

aloud as they memorised + semi- structured interview as to how memorised for homework.

Think- alouds developed into 5 point Likert scale questionnaire of 34 items (‘always, usually, sometimes, rarely, never like me’)

Presented to 180 students to confirm think- aloud strategies (Nyikos and Fan 2007)

Think aloud examples

Results: Frequency of use

Cumulative frequency score (‘sometimes= 3, usually= 4, always’=5).

Of the 13 of the most frequently used (over 60%);

8 MC specific: ‘I think of pictures to connect the shape to the meaning’ eg 甜 :'so 'tián' is sweet, this is kinda' like, looks like a sweet wrapper on the right’

3 Generic: ‘say word aloud while copying’ (q.25) similar to Oxford’s ‘I say new expressions repeatedly’.

Frequency of use

2 ‘Mid’: eg, ‘I think about how I will remember the hard bits of a character’ (q18). ‘Hard words’ may be generic but a character may be only one element in a word and made up of a number of strokes.

Of a different order- strategy has to undergo some modification?

Factor analysis

Categorisation debatable: overlap between factors

Three factors - visual processing is common to all but differences.

Of the 13 most frequently used strategies:3 fall into ‘High value’ (factor 1). Focus on whole character: eg ‘see character in head’ (q.27), ‘making up sentences with new word in it’ (q.32), ‘writing the shapes in the air’ (q.23). Time consuming: eg, 8 out of total of 13 ‘high value’ involved some physical activity.Depth of processing

Factor analysis

3 Strategies fall into factor 2: ‘Physical Appearance of Individual Elements’ (eg ‘I look at where the slashes in the character go’ q.7, I count the number of lines q.6 )

7 fall into factor 3: ‘Prior Knowledge’. Focus is not just on physical appearance: ‘look for alphabet letters’ (q9) and numbers (q11)’ but on existing understanding (eg ‘spot characters already know’ q.1)

Discussion

Beginners do need MC specific strategies (over half of the most frequently used);

Scrimgeour (2012): warns against students perceiving characters as an assemblage of strokes learned thru’ repetitive copying.

Should analyse characters, understand components and study radical functions. But our study showed limited number of these ‘metalinguistic awareness’ strategies

Focus on individual elements may be unsystematic but a necessary preliminary step in coming to grips with a character, spotting radicals, etc?

Demanding - mental overload. Little space to focus on high value strategies.

Pedagogical implications

Many MC teachers in England are native speakers- may not have developed their students’ strategies

Teachers in the study keen to teach the strategies

discovered

Liu (2009): American L2 learners who received training tended to use more strategies in Chinese literacy learning than those with no training.

Implications for Strategy-Based Instruction (SBI)

What would be the key features for MC? Models of SBI. (Peter Gu). Bring together ‘top down’

traditional model with more ‘bottom up’, collaborative, autonomous approaches of Self Regulated Learning

1. Raising Awareness

2. Modelling

3. Practice

4. Transfer and Evaluation

Pedagogical implications for SBI: 1. Raising Awareness

Activate prior knowledge factor and encourage transfer:How did you learn your vocabulary homework? Students share strategies used and decide which strategies for Roman script words will/will not work for MC and share what other MC strategies they have found;

Class shares difficulties encountered (eg more complex characters or those with no easy ‘way in’).

Pedagogical implications for SBI: 2. Modelling

2. ModellingTeacher: stresses again can still use ‘prior knowledge’ as a ‘way in’ even if characters look so unfamiliarModels strategy chains: eg

1.Q9: alphabet shapes: Z on top of J

2.Q2; look to see if any radical: liquid

3.Q7: look at where slashes go: same direction as ‘j’Models ‘high value’ strategies eg invents own story for meaning of character/ order of strokes. Sets making up stories for homework and displays

Pedagogical implications for SBI: 3. Practice

3. Practice particularly of unfamiliar and ‘high value’ strategies. Wang and Leland (2011) learners believed that practising characters through cooperative learning was effective.

Groups assigned different strategies to practise and evaluate: eg

1. writing characters on each other’s backs;

2.comparing which shapes/numbers they perceive in a character;

3.grouping characters according to meaning/ similar shapes/ radicals;

4.comparing stories for strokes/ meaning

3. Practice and 4. Evaluation

Practice:( How to make practice stage meaningful/ enjoyable, particularly in other skill areas?)

For each learning homework:Beforehand students in groups discuss which strategy chains will help most with which charactersAfterwards students list strategies they used Teacher feeds back not just on product but also process eg ‘Don’t forget strategy 7 of looking where the slashes in the character go’Evaluation: to include whether used ‘high value’ strategies: motivation?

Conclusion

Current debates on how to teach MC (online resources Australian Learning Federation).

Develop SBI to facilitate how it is learned Differences in strategy use between beginners and

advanced? Strategies of Chinese learners of English? Develop methodology to examine other languages with

different scripts (Urdu, Arabic, Korean): some similar strategies to MC (eg looking for circles), some unique.

감사합니다

References

Bo Hu (2010) The challenges of Chinese: a preliminary study of UK learners’ perceptions of difficulty. Language Learning Journal 38 (1): 99-118

Grenfell, M and Harris, V (2014) Memorisation strategies and the adolescent learner of Mandarin Chinese , Language Learning Journal 09/2014; 42(3):239-24

Gu, P.Y. (2003) Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, Task, Context and Strategies . TESL-EJ 7 (2): 1-18

Gu (2010) Learning strategies for vocabulary development. http://www.nus.edu.sg/celc/research/books/relt/vol9/no2/105to118_gu.pdf. Accessed 23/09/15

Jiang, X. and Cohen, A. D. (2012) A critical review of research on strategies in learning Chinese as both a second and foreign language. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 2 (1):9-43

Hui Li (2014) Teaching Chinese Literacy in the Early Years: Psychology, pedagogy and practice. London: Routledge Research in Language Education

Liu, Y.M. (2009) An experimental study of the methods of chinese characters learning by European and American learners. Chinese Teaching in the World 1, 1-9

Nyikos, M. and Fan, M.( 2007) A review of vocabulary learning strategies: focus on language proficiency and learner voice. In Cohen, A.D. and Macaro, E. (eds) Language Learner Strategies: 30 years of Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 251-273

Shen, H. (2005) An investigation of Chinese-character learning strategies among non-native speakers of Chinese. System 33 (1): 49-68

References

Scrimgeour, A. (2012) Issues and Approaches to Literacy Development in Chinese Second Language Classrooms. In L. Tsung and K. Cruickshank (eds) Teaching and Learning Chinese in Global Contexts.London: Bloomsbury Publishing

Sung, K.Y. (2014) Novice learners’ Chinese-Character Learning Strategies and Performance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 11 (1):38-51

Wang, J. and Leland , C.H.(2011) Beginning students’ perceptions of effective activities of Chinese character recognition. Reading in a Foreign Language 23(2): 208-224

Wharton,G (2000) Language learning strategy use of bilingual feign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50 (2): 203-43

Yin, J. H. (2003) A questionnaire study of American students’ Chinese character memorization strategies. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers’ Association 38 (3), 69-90

Zhang, G.X and Li, L.M. (2010) Chinese Language Teaching in the UK: present and future. Language Learning Journal 38 (1) 87-97.

Examples: ALTER PRIOR KNOWELDGE TO ‘I LOOK FOR SHAPES OF THE ALPHABET’- ‘IT’S JUST LIKE A J WITH TWO STROKES’

Rationale

L1 reading and writing strategies not automatically transferred to L2 (Chamot and Rubin 1994)

L1/L2 memorisation strategies for words with Roman alphabet may not be sufficient for different script

Different task-> different strategies? Exploratory study for London inner-city

adolescents not American college students

Advantage? Effectiveness?

Jiang and Zhao (2001) compared students with a character-based L1 to those from an alphabet-based L1 background. They found that the latter were more likely to use graphic strategies; in other words, those that relied on the physical appearance of a character, as opposed to the phonetic-meaning strategies used by the former group.

Kuo and Hooper(2004) investigated 5 different character learning strategies:

- self-generated mnemonics best- Visual and verbal coding better than translation- Importance of dual coding theory and confirms visual encoding for MC

(Shen 2010)

Discussion;

Of those ‘high value’ strategies they do frequently use: 2 of them may be familiar from primary school for learning to read and write their L1 eg ‘saying the word aloud or in their head while copying’ (q25) and ‘writing out a word or character lots of times with correct stroke order’ (q.22) Are problematic because they do not readily fit the category since they are repetitive and may not imply the same depth of processing?

Pedagogical implications (adapted from O’ Malley and Chamot (1990), Harris and Grenfell (1999), and Butler(2002))

1. Raising awareness of VLS

Set students homework task of memorising written form

of vocabulary list 1. Test and then to promote independent task analysis, in

groups students discuss performance criteria (eg not just correct character but neatness, order of the strokes?).

Teacher feedback on the criteria. Possible discussion of contrast to memorising spoken form?

Students in groups mark each other’s tests.

Pedagogical implications for SBI: raising awareness

Students share strategies they used for vocab list 1, including recalling those they used for Roman script words. They discuss which of those will/will not work for MC.

Class brainstorms their strategies Class brainstorms difficulties encountered

(eg more complex characters or those with no easy ‘way in’)

Pedagogical implications for SBI: modelling

2. ModellingTeacher: models by ‘think aloud’ strategies that might help and any strategies not mentioned eg inventing own story for meaning of character. Sets making up stories for homework and displaysexplains potential of ‘high value’ strategies and value of strategy chains eg ‘focus on strokes’ as a ‘way in’ to similarities and differences between characters systematic examination of components eg colour-coding of radicals by student not teacher

Pedagogical implications for SBI: modelling

Teacher uses own and students’ strategies to draw up checklist of strategies and sets strategy development as class goal

Pedagogical implications for SBI: Practice

3. Practice particularly of unfamiliar strategies:Groups assigned different strategies to practise and evaluate eg writing characters on each other’s backs, comparing which shapes/numbers they perceive, grouping characters according to meaning/ similar shapes/ radicals, comparing storiesStudents given vocab list 2 to learn and list the strategies they will use for it. Share with peers the hardest bits to remember and strategies to tackle them

Students self-evaluate before handing their work in, referencing task criteria

Teacher feedback on individual performance and strategies eg ‘don’t forget strategy 7 of looking where the slashes in the character go’

Pedagogical implications for SBI: Practice

For vocab list 3, students try to take account of teacher feedback to improve their performance. They can consult with peers for any recommended strategies they need help with

The checklist is withdrawn only once class decides no longer need it, although students can opt to keep their own copy

How to make practice stage meaningful/ enjoyable, particularly in other skill areas?

Pedagogical implications for SBI: Evaluation

4. Evaluation:

Importance of developing metacognitive strategies (see Cohen 2011 for overview): Students compare in groups their experiences of learning vocabulary, of using strategies, of identifying problem areas etcThey self monitor, reviewing which strategies worked best for themThey draw on their experience when cycle starts again with strategies for memorising spoken form

Improves motivation

“Often poorer learners don’t have a clue as to how good learners arrive at their answers and feel that they can never perform as good learners do. By revealing the process, this myth can be exposed.”

Rubin (1990, p282)

Integrating the cycle of memorisation strategies: takes too much time?

Starters: Strategy= spot the radical

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

Roman script Memorisation Strategies

1.I write the words out over and over again2.I use look-cover-test-check3.I think of a word in my mother tongue that is like the word I am learning 4.I draw a picture of it5.I look at the word and then close my eyes and try to see it in my head (photographic memory)6.I break long words up into little parts7.I make the words into a poem or a shape poem8.I put ‘post-its’ with the words on them all round my room9.I make a 'semantic map' of the topic

Memorisation Strategies (from ‘Developing my second language skills’ handbook)

10.I separate the gender of the articles from the words and then try to put them together again11.I say the first letter of the word, then my friend says the second then I say the third and so on12.I make up a word search or a cross word with the new words in it13.I make up a gap filling exercise with the new words in it14.I say the words out loud over and over again15.I make a tape of the new words and listen to it16.I put the words to a well-known tune17.I get my friend/ my parents to test me or I teach them