Prior Knowledge, Comprehension and the L2 User Ernesto Macaro University of Oxford.

Prior Knowledge, Prior Knowledge, Comprehension and the L2 Comprehension and the L2

UserUser

Ernesto MacaroErnesto Macaro

University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford

Research evidenceResearch evidence

The latest research shows that drinking The latest research shows that drinking red wine results in a significant reduction red wine results in a significant reduction in cardio-vascular related diseases in cardio-vascular related diseases (Bourgogne (Bourgogne et. al. 2004)et. al. 2004)

Therefore everyone should drink lots of Therefore everyone should drink lots of red wine.red wine.Research shows that high consumptions Research shows that high consumptions of alcohol lead to: alcohol dependency, of alcohol lead to: alcohol dependency, cirrhosis of the liver, significantly high cirrhosis of the liver, significantly high levels of marriage break-downs. levels of marriage break-downs.


A meta-analysis of SLA research shows that: A meta-analysis of SLA research shows that: Focus on form and focus on formFocus on form and focus on formss both lead to both lead to higher levels of language acquisition compared higher levels of language acquisition compared to “focus on meaning” to “focus on meaning” (Norris and Ortega 2000 (Norris and Ortega 2000 “Effectiveness of L2 instruction”)“Effectiveness of L2 instruction”)

Therefore we should have focus on form Therefore we should have focus on form designed second language learning.designed second language learning.

Focus on forms (and even consistent focus on Focus on forms (and even consistent focus on form) lead to: neglect of skills development; poor form) lead to: neglect of skills development; poor vocabulary growth rates; de-motivation; vocabulary growth rates; de-motivation; significantly high levels of marriage break-significantly high levels of marriage break-downs. downs.

Please listen to the following news Please listen to the following news itemitem

News Report: Lotticks in Hotel!News Report: Lotticks in Hotel!

A Reading man who found lotticks and izzids in his supposedly A Reading man who found lotticks and izzids in his supposedly furbustuous Caribbean hotel was awarded £459 in damages furbustuous Caribbean hotel was awarded £459 in damages yesterday by a local magistrate.yesterday by a local magistrate.

Paul Batters paid £1300 to Atlantic Pacific Tours in March 2000 for Paul Batters paid £1300 to Atlantic Pacific Tours in March 2000 for a “furbusty” holiday on the island of Martinique.a “furbusty” holiday on the island of Martinique.

The firm’s ancaps promised a furbusty hotel, free happaps from The firm’s ancaps promised a furbusty hotel, free happaps from the airport, free use of the hotel’s gabonmang and beaches.the airport, free use of the hotel’s gabonmang and beaches.

However, on his arrival, Mr Batters found there was no one to However, on his arrival, Mr Batters found there was no one to meet him at the airport, the hotel room was infested with meet him at the airport, the hotel room was infested with lotticks and izzids, and the gabonmang was completely flooded lotticks and izzids, and the gabonmang was completely flooded from the ninth hole onwards.from the ninth hole onwards.

Mr Batters successfully sued Atlantic Pacific Tours, who claimed Mr Batters successfully sued Atlantic Pacific Tours, who claimed that they had been organizing holidays on the island for 20 that they had been organizing holidays on the island for 20 years and had never received any uptips.years and had never received any uptips.


A systematic review shows that: Prior A systematic review shows that: Prior Knowledge of a topic helps listeners with Knowledge of a topic helps listeners with comprehension. (Macaro et al 2005)comprehension. (Macaro et al 2005)

Therefore language teachers should use texts Therefore language teachers should use texts which the students have prior knowledge of.which the students have prior knowledge of.

Or should they?Or should they?

Lecturers should provide L2 users with the text Lecturers should provide L2 users with the text of their lecture beforehandof their lecture beforehand

Or should they?Or should they?

Research EvidenceResearch Evidence

is like a second-hand car:is like a second-hand car:

You really need it to get aroundYou really need it to get around

But you should really have a good look But you should really have a good look under the bonnet before buying it!under the bonnet before buying it!

Prior Knowledge (schemata)Prior Knowledge (schemata)

Knowledge of the topic/areaKnowledge of the topic/area

Rhetorical knowledge: structure; Rhetorical knowledge: structure; organization of the text/discourse;organization of the text/discourse;

Context knowledge – a lecture; an Context knowledge – a lecture; an interactive seminarinteractive seminar

exampleexample

Types of prior knowledge we might have of Types of prior knowledge we might have of the topic:the topic:

““floodsfloods””

““schema”schema”

GlobalSpecific eventPersonal

Geographical lectureNews reportPersonal account

Understanding Spoken Text

Top-Down Processing:Application of PK

perception parsing

Bottom-up processing

Why the interest in Prior Why the interest in Prior Knowledge?Knowledge?

the most efficient comprehension is one the most efficient comprehension is one where the listener uses the least amount where the listener uses the least amount of “surface information” from the text to of “surface information” from the text to achieve the maximum amount of meaning achieve the maximum amount of meaning

Studies testing the facilitating effect Studies testing the facilitating effect of “familiar topic”of “familiar topic”

Generally, if listener knew topic (personal or specific Generally, if listener knew topic (personal or specific knowledge) they understood it better than if they did not knowledge) they understood it better than if they did not know the topicknow the topic

However some caveats:However some caveats:PK sometimes led to wild guessing (or overextending)PK sometimes led to wild guessing (or overextending)PK effect only strong in open-ended comprehension, not specific itemsPK effect only strong in open-ended comprehension, not specific itemsPK only accounted for a small % of the variance in comprehensionPK only accounted for a small % of the variance in comprehension

Markham and Latham (1987); Long (1990); Jensen & Hansen (1995) Markham and Latham (1987); Long (1990); Jensen & Hansen (1995)

Studies testing the facilitating effect Studies testing the facilitating effect of of stimulatingstimulating prior knowledge prior knowledge

Topic not necessarily very familiarTopic not necessarily very familiarglobal knowledge stimulatedglobal knowledge stimulatedTeacher presents students with advance Teacher presents students with advance organizer activitiesorganizer activitiesMind mapping; statements or questionsMind mapping; statements or questionsGenerally, comprehension was facilitatedGenerally, comprehension was facilitatedNo evidence of long-term effect on skill of No evidence of long-term effect on skill of listening – on strategy uselistening – on strategy use

Teichert (1996) Herron et al. (1998) Teichert (1996) Herron et al. (1998)

Studies: strategy use and Studies: strategy use and successful listeningsuccessful listening

often described as investigating “successful often described as investigating “successful listeners versus unsuccessful” listenerslisteners versus unsuccessful” listeners

Two hypotheses are tested here, Two hypotheses are tested here,

1.1. Learners of Learners of unequalunequal listening proficiency use listening proficiency use different strategies. different strategies.

2.2. some learners of some learners of equalequal general proficiency general proficiency might be adopting more effective listening might be adopting more effective listening strategies than others. strategies than others.

Testing Hypothesis 1Testing Hypothesis 1

more effective listeners use PK to infer more effective listeners use PK to infer meaning rather than working it out from meaning rather than working it out from the text itselfthe text itselfLess effective listeners use strategies Less effective listeners use strategies such as such as listening out for single wordslistening out for single words, , translating into L1translating into L1, , Hence claims for the superiority of top-Hence claims for the superiority of top-down approachesdown approaches

O’Malley et al (1989); Vandergrift (1998); Chien and Wei (1998).O’Malley et al (1989); Vandergrift (1998); Chien and Wei (1998).

Studies testing hypothesis 2Studies testing hypothesis 2

No studies really testing this hypothesis No studies really testing this hypothesis but these two come near it.but these two come near it.

Chiang and Dunkel 1992Chiang and Dunkel 1992

Tsui and Fullilove 1998Tsui and Fullilove 1998

Chiang and Dunkel (1992)Chiang and Dunkel (1992)

the importance of two factors in learners' the importance of two factors in learners' ability to understanding spoken English ability to understanding spoken English language texts in lectures: language texts in lectures:

1.1. prior knowledge,prior knowledge, operationalized as operationalized as familiar or unfamiliar topic, familiar or unfamiliar topic,

2.2. passage-dependentpassage-dependent and and passage-passage-independentindependent test items. test items.


360 students took the Comprehensive English 360 students took the Comprehensive English Language Test and on the basis of their scores Language Test and on the basis of their scores were divided into were divided into low and high listening low and high listening proficiencyproficiency groups. groups.Students at each level were then randomly Students at each level were then randomly assigned to one of the four experimental assigned to one of the four experimental conditions: conditions: familiar familiar or or unfamiliar unfamiliar topic of text; topic of text; passage-dependent passage-dependent or or passage-independentpassage-independent test items. test items. Subjects in each group listened to one of the Subjects in each group listened to one of the lectures recorded in one of the four conditions. lectures recorded in one of the four conditions.


Results:Results:

Prior knowledge:Prior knowledge:Generally subjects scored higher when they Generally subjects scored higher when they listened to the familiar topic than the unfamiliar listened to the familiar topic than the unfamiliar topic (predicted). topic (predicted). There was no significant difference between There was no significant difference between HILP and LILP in this respect.HILP and LILP in this respect.However, the significant effect of prior However, the significant effect of prior knowledge knowledge onlyonly appeared on the subjects' appeared on the subjects' performance on the performance on the text-independenttext-independent items. items. This suggests that it did not help them with main This suggests that it did not help them with main ideas ideas contained in the text nor with specific nor with specific details. details.

Tsui and Fullilove (1998)Tsui and Fullilove (1998)Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2

listening performance. listening performance. Applied Linguistics 19/4Applied Linguistics 19/4

TopicTopic

Is bottom-up processing (focusing on Is bottom-up processing (focusing on words and phrases in the text) more words and phrases in the text) more important than top-down processing (using important than top-down processing (using the listener's prior knowledge and the listener's prior knowledge and inferencing) in discriminating the listening inferencing) in discriminating the listening performance of L2 learners.performance of L2 learners.

Tsui and Fullilove (1998)Tsui and Fullilove (1998)

BackgroundBackgroundPrevious research has suggested that poor Previous research has suggested that poor listeners spend too much time in bottom-up listeners spend too much time in bottom-up processes (local) rather than top-down (global)processes (local) rather than top-down (global)However, some researchers have suggested However, some researchers have suggested that what makes that what makes poor readerspoor readers is their is their inability to inability to recognize words rapidlyrecognize words rapidly and construct an and construct an accurate representation. Local skills have to be accurate representation. Local skills have to be mastered to take much of the guesswork out of mastered to take much of the guesswork out of reading. Same for listening?reading. Same for listening?


MethodMethod

Investigated the performance of candidates in one Investigated the performance of candidates in one section of a listening paper in large-scale public section of a listening paper in large-scale public examinations in Hong Kong: “media items” – short texts examinations in Hong Kong: “media items” – short texts simulations of news items or adverts. (English L2)simulations of news items or adverts. (English L2)

Independent Variables:Independent Variables:

Question typeQuestion type: global or local (see examples): global or local (see examples)

Schema typeSchema type: (1) initial input is congruent: (1) initial input is congruent with subsequent with subsequent inputinput

(2) initial input is incongruent(2) initial input is incongruent (refuted (refuted by) with the subsequent input (see examples)by) with the subsequent input (see examples)

examplesexamplesLocal and Global questionsLocal and Global questions

A. Butterfly catchingA. Butterfly catchingB. Bird WatchingB. Bird WatchingC. TravellingC. TravellingD. Kite FlyingD. Kite Flying

A. Tom EverlyA. Tom EverlyB. Bobby WalkerB. Bobby WalkerC. Mike HarmanC. Mike HarmanD. Isabella O’GradyD. Isabella O’Grady

Matching and non-matching schema Matching and non-matching schema typetype

A. A kitchen knifeA. A kitchen knifeB. An oven timerB. An oven timerC. A cleaning clothC. A cleaning clothD. A special dishD. A special dish

A. the direction the wind was A. the direction the wind was blowingblowingB. the strong jets of water from the B. the strong jets of water from the fire hosesfire hosesC. the prompt call by residents to C. the prompt call by residents to the fire servicesthe fire servicesThe quick action of the firemenThe quick action of the firemen


Sample: 177 test items taken by 20,000 Sample: 177 test items taken by 20,000 candidates. 98 matching global questions; 20 candidates. 98 matching global questions; 20 non-matching; 49 matching local questions; 10 non-matching; 49 matching local questions; 10 not matchingnot matchingAnalysis: “mean criterion” = the mean scores in Analysis: “mean criterion” = the mean scores in the entire paper of the candidates who chose the entire paper of the candidates who chose those multiple choice options.those multiple choice options.An option with a “high mean criterion” was An option with a “high mean criterion” was chosen by candidates who scored higher in the chosen by candidates who scored higher in the entire paper.entire paper.


ResultsResultsConsistently showed that (correct) items of Consistently showed that (correct) items of non-non-matching schemamatching schema type (i.e harder) yielded the higher type (i.e harder) yielded the higher mean criterion scores (i.e. were chosen by the most mean criterion scores (i.e. were chosen by the most successful students) (predicted)successful students) (predicted)

No significant differences between No significant differences between local and global local and global questionsquestions. (not predicted!). (not predicted!)

Mean criterion scores of Mean criterion scores of non-matching schemanon-matching schema type type items among the items among the global questionsglobal questions were significantly were significantly higher than those of the matching schema type among higher than those of the matching schema type among the global questions. (predicted)the global questions. (predicted)

Mean criterion scores of Mean criterion scores of non-matching schemanon-matching schema type type items among the items among the local questionslocal questions were significantly were significantly higher than those of matching schema type among the higher than those of matching schema type among the local questions. (not predicted!)local questions. (not predicted!)


Conclusions and implicationsConclusions and implicationsThe biggest problem occurred with The biggest problem occurred with non-non-matching schemamatching schema: listeners unable to process : listeners unable to process subsequent input which contradicted their initial subsequent input which contradicted their initial schema. Either: schema. Either: they were weak atthey were weak at bottom-up bottom-up processing processing oror not combining strategies not combining strategiesLearners need to be taught how to use Learners need to be taught how to use prior prior knowledge to help understandknowledge to help understand but also they but also they need to be reliant on need to be reliant on rapid and accurate rapid and accurate decoding.decoding.Most effective listeners combine top-down Most effective listeners combine top-down and bottom up strategiesand bottom up strategies

Lectures and the L2 userLectures and the L2 user

Lectures will activate prior knowledge of some Lectures will activate prior knowledge of some sort. Which kind?sort. Which kind?

What kind of lectures: traditional; interactive; What kind of lectures: traditional; interactive; semi-interactive?semi-interactive?

Individual a variable?Individual a variable?

We need to understand why and when prior We need to understand why and when prior knowledge is leading to misunderstanding of knowledge is leading to misunderstanding of lectureslectures

For a review on “academic listening” see: Flowerdew (1994)For a review on “academic listening” see: Flowerdew (1994)

Ruhe 1996Ruhe 1996

Enhanced lecture comprehension through the provision Enhanced lecture comprehension through the provision of an of an organizational graphicorganizational graphic – a mind map similar to – a mind map similar to advance organizers. advance organizers. A sample of 103 students with mixed L1s were matched: A sample of 103 students with mixed L1s were matched: “graphic provided” versus “no graphic provided”; and “graphic provided” versus “no graphic provided”; and “vocabulary provided in lecture order” versus “vocabulary “vocabulary provided in lecture order” versus “vocabulary provided in non-lecture order”. provided in non-lecture order”. ““graphic provided” group scored higher than the control graphic provided” group scored higher than the control whilst there were no significant differences between the whilst there were no significant differences between the control and the two “vocabulary provided” conditions. control and the two “vocabulary provided” conditions. In other words, all conditions except the control would In other words, all conditions except the control would have activated schemata but only the graphic revealed have activated schemata but only the graphic revealed the the organizational patterns of the lectureorganizational patterns of the lecture..

Use of metaphor in lectures Use of metaphor in lectures (Littlemore 2001)(Littlemore 2001)

Metaphor: “science is witchcraft”Metaphor: “science is witchcraft”

““science” is the topic of the metaphorscience” is the topic of the metaphor

““witchcraft” is the vehicle of the metaphorwitchcraft” is the vehicle of the metaphor

““the common ground” is what is shared by the common ground” is what is shared by participants in the metaphorparticipants in the metaphor

The common ground of metaphor is often The common ground of metaphor is often culturally specificculturally specific

Lectures include metaphor Lectures include metaphor because:because:

Metaphors are evaluative (usually negative)Metaphors are evaluative (usually negative)

Metaphors label new concepts being introducedMetaphors label new concepts being introduced

Metaphors allow the lecturer to be deliberately Metaphors allow the lecturer to be deliberately vaguevague

Metaphors provide frameworks for ideasMetaphors provide frameworks for ideas

Metaphors make language entertaining and Metaphors make language entertaining and memorablememorable

Littlemore 2001Littlemore 2001

MethodMethodBangladeshi students of “civil service Bangladeshi students of “civil service reform”reform”Researcher followed their lecturesResearcher followed their lecturesStudents asked to note down difficult Students asked to note down difficult language in lectureslanguage in lectures20 Students given 10 metaphors to 20 Students given 10 metaphors to interpret and to say how they had derived interpret and to say how they had derived the meaningthe meaning

Littlemore 2001Littlemore 2001

FindingsFindingsAlthough lecturers varied in their use of Although lecturers varied in their use of metaphormetaphor it was it was always presentalways present somewhere somewhere Of 180 words judged difficult, Of 180 words judged difficult, 145 were 145 were metaphoricalmetaphoricalMost of the participants misinterpreted at least Most of the participants misinterpreted at least one of the metaphors in a way that one of the metaphors in a way that seriously seriously affected their understandingaffected their understanding of the lecturer’s of the lecturer’s position/opinion.position/opinion.Participants wrongly used both Participants wrongly used both schematic schematic knowledgeknowledge (PK & cultural background) and (PK & cultural background) and contextual knowledgecontextual knowledge about their course, to about their course, to interpret the metaphorinterpret the metaphor

Main findings of the review on PKMain findings of the review on PK

There is a There is a positive associationpositive association between between Prior Knowledge and listening Prior Knowledge and listening comprehensioncomprehension

Studies where Prior Knowledge was Studies where Prior Knowledge was deliberately stimulated by the teacher (i.e. deliberately stimulated by the teacher (i.e. advanced organizer type studies) found advanced organizer type studies) found that students’ that students’ short term listening short term listening comprehensioncomprehension performance was greater performance was greater

PK review findingsPK review findings

Prior Knowledge can be Prior Knowledge can be misusedmisused if it is if it is not supported by later in-text information not supported by later in-text information or if the listener is not listening out for or if the listener is not listening out for possible contradicting information. possible contradicting information.

The way in which Prior Knowledge is used The way in which Prior Knowledge is used as a comprehension strategy may vary as a comprehension strategy may vary depending on the learners L2 depending on the learners L2 language language proficiencyproficiency. Lower proficiency learners . Lower proficiency learners likely to likely to misusemisuse prior knowledge more. prior knowledge more. (Previous research concluded it was a question (Previous research concluded it was a question of either use or non-use)of either use or non-use)

Implications (for teachers/test-constructors)Implications (for teachers/test-constructors)

Texts should be selected carefully by teachers to take Texts should be selected carefully by teachers to take into account both the facilitating and potential pitfalls of into account both the facilitating and potential pitfalls of prior knowledge. prior knowledge.

Facilitating comprehension may engender motivation.Facilitating comprehension may engender motivation.

Limiting exposure to texts where the topic is familiar to Limiting exposure to texts where the topic is familiar to the listener, may lead to under-developing bottom-up the listener, may lead to under-developing bottom-up processes crucial for confirming hypotheses generated.processes crucial for confirming hypotheses generated.

Tests should include questions which require Tests should include questions which require understanding of information which may contradict a understanding of information which may contradict a listener’s general knowledge of a topic.listener’s general knowledge of a topic.

Implications for lecturers/teachers Implications for lecturers/teachers of L2 usersof L2 users

Lecturers should exercise caution in their use of Lecturers should exercise caution in their use of metaphormetaphorRaise students’ awareness of metaphor useRaise students’ awareness of metaphor usePerhaps provide mind-mapping activities at the Perhaps provide mind-mapping activities at the beginning of a lecturebeginning of a lectureFind out PK of students Find out PK of students (global/specific/personal)(global/specific/personal)Provide key words on slides to guide the Provide key words on slides to guide the understanding. understanding. Check understanding on schema-non-matching Check understanding on schema-non-matching informationinformation

Implications for researchersImplications for researchers

More research on the different types of PKMore research on the different types of PKHow does PK interact with different lecture How does PK interact with different lecture types/stylestypes/stylesDisentangle hypothesis 1 from hypothesis 2Disentangle hypothesis 1 from hypothesis 2To identify successful listening strategies, need To identify successful listening strategies, need to control for general proficiency and PK.to control for general proficiency and PK.

Lecture comprehension& L2 user

Prior Knowledge(schemata)

Mode of delivery

How much is“given”beforehandL2 proficiency

Prior Knowledge, Comprehension and the L2 User Ernesto Macaro University of Oxford.

Documents

Transcript of Prior Knowledge, Comprehension and the L2 User Ernesto Macaro University of Oxford.