Abstract
The present study was carried out to investigate the effect of story-based approach on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition. The theories on which this study was based on were Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis, Context Theory, Depth of Processing Model and Constructivist Theory. The significance of the study was that it could provide some new insights into story-based approach, help enrich existing theories on vocabulary acquisition, especially for vocational schools, and offer valuable pedagogical suggestions to English teachers. The research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows:
1. Which method is more effective in the immediate vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
2. Which method is more effective in delayed vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
3. To what extent can immediate vocabulary acquisition be retained in the delayed test in terms of two methods?
Participants in this study consisted of 97 students from two parallel classes of Grade One at Yangzhou Jiangsu Business Higher Vocational School. The reasons why they were selected were that they were taught by the researcher, that they had similar English background and English level, and that they were cooperative. Class One was treated with the teacher’s storytelling method, and Class Two with the learner’s story-writing method. The target words were chosen from the book they would use the next term. The story for Class One was adapted from a story skeleton edited by Morgan and Rinvolucri, with some details added and some expressions modified. The target words were woven into the story and distributed evenly in the paragraphs of the story’s main part. The two classes were taught the target words with pictures and explanations which illustrate every word vividly. The instruments employed in this study were immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test adapted and translated from Paribakht & Wesche’s Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). The data were collected by the researcher from immediate test and delayed test. Because one student in the teacher’s storytelling class was absent in the immediate test, and two students in the learner’s story-writing class were absent in the delayed test, the total valid number was 94. Data analysis involved scoring, Independent-samples t-test, and calculation of retention rate. They were employed to compare the effect of story-based approach on vocabulary acquisition.
This study generated the following three major findings:
Firstly, both the teacher’s storytelling method and the learner’s story-writing method could generate vocabulary acquisition. It might be attributed to Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis. The story employed in the teacher’s storytelling class catered to students’ interests and the language was not difficult for them to comprehend; and the sentences displayed in the learner’s story-writing class were related to students’ daily lives and were expressed in a plain and clear way. These conditions were in line with enough exposure to comprehensible input and enabled students’ acquisition to occur naturally.
Secondly, there was a significant difference between the two classes in the immediate test and the delayed test. The learner’s story-writing class performed better than the teacher’s storytelling class in both tests, which suggested that the learner’s story-writing method was more effective than teacher’s storytelling in vocabulary acquisition. This might be due to the following three reasons: (1) the learner’s story-writing class produced more comprehensible output than students in the teacher’s storytelling class; (2) the learner’s story-writing class underwent a deeper processing of target words than the teacher’s storytelling class since they were forced to understand the meaning and usage of each target word and digest them thoroughly so that they could write stories with them; (3) the learner’s story-writing class put more attention and energy in the task and they were more engaged in class.
Thirdly, there was no significant difference in retention rate of target words acquisition between the two classes. Both classes gained less vocabulary acquisition in the delayed test than in the immediate test because of memory loss. That is to say, memory retention declines in course of time. The retention rates of both classes were above 90 percent, which indicated that both methods were effective in retention of vocabulary acquisition. The two methods were story-based, stressing natural discourse and encouraged students to either comprehend or compose meaningful discourse, which contributed to longer retention.
This study has some pedagogical implications. Firstly, story-based approach can be applied to vocational school vocabulary teaching. Because students are apt to be attracted by stories, their learning interests can be aroused if proper materials are prepared. Secondly, teachers should explore the textbooks thoroughly and organize the teaching content properly according to different needs of the class. More information can be included in vocabulary instruction to provide appropriate contexts for lexical learning. Thirdly, the original story-based approach should be altered with more emphasis on students’ initiative in weaving the story.
The study had three limitations and called for improvement in future studies. Firstly, the participants who took part in this study were not sampled at random, and they were from the same school. Besides, the participants were all in grade one. Thus, the conclusion could not be generalized to all grades and educational circumstances. Further researches could study other grades and larger samples. Secondly, long-time effects of story-based approach on participants’ acquisition of new words were not assessed. So the conclusions could not be applied to long-term vocabulary acquisition. More longitudinal studies were needed to further explore the effects of story-based approach on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition. Lastly, due to limited conditions, digital storytelling method was unable to be put into practice. Future studies could implement digital storytelling to discover its effects on vocabulary acquisition.
Key words: story-based approach, teacher’s storytelling method, learner’s story-writing method, vocabulary acquisition, retention rate
The present study was carried out to investigate the effect of story-based approach on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition. The theories on which this study was based on were Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis, Context Theory, Depth of Processing Model and Constructivist Theory. The significance of the study was that it could provide some new insights into story-based approach, help enrich existing theories on vocabulary acquisition, especially for vocational schools, and offer valuable pedagogical suggestions to English teachers. The research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows:
1. Which method is more effective in the immediate vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
2. Which method is more effective in delayed vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
3. To what extent can immediate vocabulary acquisition be retained in the delayed test in terms of two methods?
Participants in this study consisted of 97 students from two parallel classes of Grade One at Yangzhou Jiangsu Business Higher Vocational School. The reasons why they were selected were that they were taught by the researcher, that they had similar English background and English level, and that they were cooperative. Class One was treated with the teacher’s storytelling method, and Class Two with the learner’s story-writing method. The target words were chosen from the book they would use the next term. The story for Class One was adapted from a story skeleton edited by Morgan and Rinvolucri, with some details added and some expressions modified. The target words were woven into the story and distributed evenly in the paragraphs of the story’s main part. The two classes were taught the target words with pictures and explanations which illustrate every word vividly. The instruments employed in this study were immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test adapted and translated from Paribakht & Wesche’s Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). The data were collected by the researcher from immediate test and delayed test. Because one student in the teacher’s storytelling class was absent in the immediate test, and two students in the learner’s story-writing class were absent in the delayed test, the total valid number was 94. Data analysis involved scoring, Independent-samples t-test, and calculation of retention rate. They were employed to compare the effect of story-based approach on vocabulary acquisition.
This study generated the following three major findings:
Firstly, both the teacher’s storytelling method and the learner’s story-writing method could generate vocabulary acquisition. It might be attributed to Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis. The story employed in the teacher’s storytelling class catered to students’ interests and the language was not difficult for them to comprehend; and the sentences displayed in the learner’s story-writing class were related to students’ daily lives and were expressed in a plain and clear way. These conditions were in line with enough exposure to comprehensible input and enabled students’ acquisition to occur naturally.
Secondly, there was a significant difference between the two classes in the immediate test and the delayed test. The learner’s story-writing class performed better than the teacher’s storytelling class in both tests, which suggested that the learner’s story-writing method was more effective than teacher’s storytelling in vocabulary acquisition. This might be due to the following three reasons: (1) the learner’s story-writing class produced more comprehensible output than students in the teacher’s storytelling class; (2) the learner’s story-writing class underwent a deeper processing of target words than the teacher’s storytelling class since they were forced to understand the meaning and usage of each target word and digest them thoroughly so that they could write stories with them; (3) the learner’s story-writing class put more attention and energy in the task and they were more engaged in class.
Thirdly, there was no significant difference in retention rate of target words acquisition between the two classes. Both classes gained less vocabulary acquisition in the delayed test than in the immediate test because of memory loss. That is to say, memory retention declines in course of time. The retention rates of both classes were above 90 percent, which indicated that both methods were effective in retention of vocabulary acquisition. The two methods were story-based, stressing natural discourse and encouraged students to either comprehend or compose meaningful discourse, which contributed to longer retention.
This study has some pedagogical implications. Firstly, story-based approach can be applied to vocational school vocabulary teaching. Because students are apt to be attracted by stories, their learning interests can be aroused if proper materials are prepared. Secondly, teachers should explore the textbooks thoroughly and organize the teaching content properly according to different needs of the class. More information can be included in vocabulary instruction to provide appropriate contexts for lexical learning. Thirdly, the original story-based approach should be altered with more emphasis on students’ initiative in weaving the story.
The study had three limitations and called for improvement in future studies. Firstly, the participants who took part in this study were not sampled at random, and they were from the same school. Besides, the participants were all in grade one. Thus, the conclusion could not be generalized to all grades and educational circumstances. Further researches could study other grades and larger samples. Secondly, long-time effects of story-based approach on participants’ acquisition of new words were not assessed. So the conclusions could not be applied to long-term vocabulary acquisition. More longitudinal studies were needed to further explore the effects of story-based approach on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition. Lastly, due to limited conditions, digital storytelling method was unable to be put into practice. Future studies could implement digital storytelling to discover its effects on vocabulary acquisition.
Key words: story-based approach, teacher’s storytelling method, learner’s story-writing method, vocabulary acquisition, retention rate
摘要
本研究旨在探讨两种不同的故事教学方法对中职学生词汇习得的影响。其理论框架为输入假设、输出假设、语境理论、深层加工理论模型及建构主义理论。本研究的意义在于为故事教学法展现新视角、丰富现有词汇习得研究、为英语教师提供教学建议。本研究主要探讨以下三个问题：
1. 哪种教学方法对词汇习得即时效果更好，教师讲故事还是学生写故事？
2 .哪种教学方法对词汇习得延时效果更好，教师讲故事还是学生写故事？
3. 两种教学法在多大程度上能保持词汇习得的效果？
扬州商务高等职业学校两个班共97名学生参与了本次研究，选择这两个班的主要原因如下：他们都由笔者教授，并有类似的英语学习经历、英语水平，且态度端正，积极配合。一班采用教师讲故事法，二班采用学生写故事法。目标词汇选自学生下学期将使用的第二册课本。一班所用的故事改编自Morgan 和Rinvolucri的故事框架，笔者修改了其语言表述并增加了一些细节，将所有目标词汇均编入故事，平均分配在故事主体部分的段落里。两个班均通过形象的图片、释义教授目标词汇。研究工具是由Paribakht和Wesche的词汇知识等级量表（VKS）改编、翻译而成的词汇测试卷。研究数据来源于即时测试和延时测试，由于教师讲故事班有一名学生在即时测试中缺席，学生写故事班的两名同学在延时测试中缺席，故有效研究对象共94名学生。数据分析包含评分、独立样本t-检验及计算词汇习得保持率，以检验两种不同的故事教学法对词汇习得的影响。
本研究主要有以下三个发现：
第一，教师讲故事教学法和学生写故事教学法都能引起词汇习得。这一结果与克拉申的可理解性输入理论一致。教师讲故事班的故事符合学生的兴趣，语言浅显易懂；而学生写故事班的例句是与学生日常生活相关的，表述清晰朴实。这些条件满足充分的可理解性输入，使学生词汇习得自然发生。
第二，教师讲故事班与学生写故事班在即时测试与延时测试中均有显著性差异。后者在两个测试中的表现均优于前者，这意味着学生写故事教学法在词汇习得上比教师讲故事教学法更有效。产生此现象的可能原因如下：（1）学生写故事班的可理解性输出远大于讲故事班；（2）学生写故事班对目标词汇进行了更深层次的加工，因为他们必须在理解单词的基础上才能将其用于编写故事；（3）学生写故事班在课堂活动上投入了更多的精力，参与度更高。
第三，教师讲故事班和学生写故事班在目标词汇习得的保持率上无明显差别。二者的延时测试得分均低于即时测试分数，表明随时间迁移，记忆保持也随之下降。但二者在延时测试中的平均分均高于90分，这显示两种教学方法在词汇习得保持上均有一定效果。这两种方法基于故事，强调自然语境，鼓励学生理解、或建构意义语境,有助于记忆保持。
本研究对英语教学有如下启示。首先，故事教学法可用于职业学校英语词汇教学，由于学生容易被故事吸引，因此，若准备合适的材料，可以极大地激发学生的学习兴趣。其次，教师应根据班级的不同需要，充分挖掘教材，合理安排教学内容。在词汇教学中加入更多信息，为学生词汇学习提供恰当的语境。最后，故事教学法应更加注重学生创编故事情节的主动性。
本研究有以下三点不足需要未来研究改进。第一，本研究参与者来自同一所学校同一年级，且不是随机抽取的，因此，本研究的结论不能应用于所有年级及所有教育环境。未来研究可以选取不同年级、更大的样本。第二，故事教学法对词汇习得的长期影响并未涉及，不能保证词汇习得的长期效果，需要更多研究探索故事教学法对职校学生词汇习得的长期影响。最后，由于条件限制，数字故事教学法未能施行，未来研究可关注数字故事教学法对词汇习得的影响。
关键词：故事教学法，讲故事法，写故事法，词汇习得，保持率
本研究旨在探讨两种不同的故事教学方法对中职学生词汇习得的影响。其理论框架为输入假设、输出假设、语境理论、深层加工理论模型及建构主义理论。本研究的意义在于为故事教学法展现新视角、丰富现有词汇习得研究、为英语教师提供教学建议。本研究主要探讨以下三个问题：
1. 哪种教学方法对词汇习得即时效果更好，教师讲故事还是学生写故事？
2 .哪种教学方法对词汇习得延时效果更好，教师讲故事还是学生写故事？
3. 两种教学法在多大程度上能保持词汇习得的效果？
扬州商务高等职业学校两个班共97名学生参与了本次研究，选择这两个班的主要原因如下：他们都由笔者教授，并有类似的英语学习经历、英语水平，且态度端正，积极配合。一班采用教师讲故事法，二班采用学生写故事法。目标词汇选自学生下学期将使用的第二册课本。一班所用的故事改编自Morgan 和Rinvolucri的故事框架，笔者修改了其语言表述并增加了一些细节，将所有目标词汇均编入故事，平均分配在故事主体部分的段落里。两个班均通过形象的图片、释义教授目标词汇。研究工具是由Paribakht和Wesche的词汇知识等级量表（VKS）改编、翻译而成的词汇测试卷。研究数据来源于即时测试和延时测试，由于教师讲故事班有一名学生在即时测试中缺席，学生写故事班的两名同学在延时测试中缺席，故有效研究对象共94名学生。数据分析包含评分、独立样本t-检验及计算词汇习得保持率，以检验两种不同的故事教学法对词汇习得的影响。
本研究主要有以下三个发现：
第一，教师讲故事教学法和学生写故事教学法都能引起词汇习得。这一结果与克拉申的可理解性输入理论一致。教师讲故事班的故事符合学生的兴趣，语言浅显易懂；而学生写故事班的例句是与学生日常生活相关的，表述清晰朴实。这些条件满足充分的可理解性输入，使学生词汇习得自然发生。
第二，教师讲故事班与学生写故事班在即时测试与延时测试中均有显著性差异。后者在两个测试中的表现均优于前者，这意味着学生写故事教学法在词汇习得上比教师讲故事教学法更有效。产生此现象的可能原因如下：（1）学生写故事班的可理解性输出远大于讲故事班；（2）学生写故事班对目标词汇进行了更深层次的加工，因为他们必须在理解单词的基础上才能将其用于编写故事；（3）学生写故事班在课堂活动上投入了更多的精力，参与度更高。
第三，教师讲故事班和学生写故事班在目标词汇习得的保持率上无明显差别。二者的延时测试得分均低于即时测试分数，表明随时间迁移，记忆保持也随之下降。但二者在延时测试中的平均分均高于90分，这显示两种教学方法在词汇习得保持上均有一定效果。这两种方法基于故事，强调自然语境，鼓励学生理解、或建构意义语境,有助于记忆保持。
本研究对英语教学有如下启示。首先，故事教学法可用于职业学校英语词汇教学，由于学生容易被故事吸引，因此，若准备合适的材料，可以极大地激发学生的学习兴趣。其次，教师应根据班级的不同需要，充分挖掘教材，合理安排教学内容。在词汇教学中加入更多信息，为学生词汇学习提供恰当的语境。最后，故事教学法应更加注重学生创编故事情节的主动性。
本研究有以下三点不足需要未来研究改进。第一，本研究参与者来自同一所学校同一年级，且不是随机抽取的，因此，本研究的结论不能应用于所有年级及所有教育环境。未来研究可以选取不同年级、更大的样本。第二，故事教学法对词汇习得的长期影响并未涉及，不能保证词汇习得的长期效果，需要更多研究探索故事教学法对职校学生词汇习得的长期影响。最后，由于条件限制，数字故事教学法未能施行，未来研究可关注数字故事教学法对词汇习得的影响。
关键词：故事教学法，讲故事法，写故事法，词汇习得，保持率
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... I
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... II
摘要................................................................................................................................................ V
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... VII
List of Tables................................................................................................................................ IX
Chapter One Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General Description of the Study....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivations for the Study.................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Significance of the Study................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Overall Structure of the Thesis........................................................................................... 3
Chapter Two Literature Review............................................................................................... 5
2.1 Key Terms in This Study.................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Story-Based Approach.............................................................................................. 5
2.1.1.1 Storytelling Method........................................................................................ 5
2.1.1.2 The PACE Model........................................................................................... 6
2.1.1.3 Digital Storytelling......................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Receptive Knowledge and Productive Knowledge of Vocabulary........................ 10
2.2 Theoretical Foundations in This Study............................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis.................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis.................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Context Theory....................................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Depth of Processing Model.................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Constructivist Theory............................................................................................. 15
2.3 Previous Studies on Story-Based Approach..................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Previous Studies on Models of Story-Based Approach......................................... 16
2.3.2 Previous Studies on Values of Story-Based Approach in Language Instruction.... 19
2.3.3 Comments on Previous Studies.............................................................................. 23
Chapter Three Methodology................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Research Questions........................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Research Design............................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1 Participants............................................................................................................. 25
3.2.2 Choice of Target Words.......................................................................................... 26
3.2.3 Treatments............................................................................................................... 26
3.2.3.1 Design of the Teacher’s Storytelling Class Instruction................................. 27
3.2.3.2 Design of the Learner’s Story-Writing Class Instruction............................. 28
3.2.4 Instruments............................................................................................................. 28
3.2.5 Data Collection....................................................................................................... 29
3.2.6 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................... 30
3.2.6.1 Scoring.......................................................................................................... 30
3.2.6.2 Independent -Samples T-Test....................................................................... 31
3.2.6.3 Calculation of Retention Rates..................................................................... 31
Chapter Four Results and Discussion..................................................................................... 32
4.1 Results of the Experiment................................................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Effects of Story-Based Approach on Immediate Vocabulary Acquisition............. 32
4.1.2 Effects of Story-Based Approach on Delayed Vocabulary Acquisition................. 32
4.1.3 Retention Rates of Vocabulary Acquisition in Delayed Tests of Two Methods.... 33
4.2 Discussion of the Results of the Experiment.................................................................... 34
4.2.1 Discussion of Effects of Story-Based Approach on Vocabulary Acquisition........ 34
4.2.2 Discussion of Retention Rates of Vocabulary Acquisition in Two Different Teaching Methods 36
Chapter Five Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Major Findings.................................................................................................................. 39
5.2 Pedagogical Implications.................................................................................................. 40
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies............................................................. 41
References.................................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix I: PPT : Identification of Fifty Words...................................................................... 49
Appendix II: The Story in the Teacher’s Storytelling Class..................................................... 50
Appendix III: Immediate Vocabulary Test................................................................................ 51
Appendix IV: Delayed Vocabulary Test.................................................................................... 53
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... I
Abstract......................................................................................................................................... II
摘要................................................................................................................................................ V
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... VII
List of Tables................................................................................................................................ IX
Chapter One Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General Description of the Study....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivations for the Study.................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Significance of the Study................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Overall Structure of the Thesis........................................................................................... 3
Chapter Two Literature Review............................................................................................... 5
2.1 Key Terms in This Study.................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Story-Based Approach.............................................................................................. 5
2.1.1.1 Storytelling Method........................................................................................ 5
2.1.1.2 The PACE Model........................................................................................... 6
2.1.1.3 Digital Storytelling......................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Receptive Knowledge and Productive Knowledge of Vocabulary........................ 10
2.2 Theoretical Foundations in This Study............................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis.................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis.................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Context Theory....................................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Depth of Processing Model.................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Constructivist Theory............................................................................................. 15
2.3 Previous Studies on Story-Based Approach..................................................................... 16
2.3.1 Previous Studies on Models of Story-Based Approach......................................... 16
2.3.2 Previous Studies on Values of Story-Based Approach in Language Instruction.... 19
2.3.3 Comments on Previous Studies.............................................................................. 23
Chapter Three Methodology................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Research Questions........................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Research Design............................................................................................................... 25
3.2.1 Participants............................................................................................................. 25
3.2.2 Choice of Target Words.......................................................................................... 26
3.2.3 Treatments............................................................................................................... 26
3.2.3.1 Design of the Teacher’s Storytelling Class Instruction................................. 27
3.2.3.2 Design of the Learner’s Story-Writing Class Instruction............................. 28
3.2.4 Instruments............................................................................................................. 28
3.2.5 Data Collection....................................................................................................... 29
3.2.6 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................... 30
3.2.6.1 Scoring.......................................................................................................... 30
3.2.6.2 Independent -Samples T-Test....................................................................... 31
3.2.6.3 Calculation of Retention Rates..................................................................... 31
Chapter Four Results and Discussion..................................................................................... 32
4.1 Results of the Experiment................................................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Effects of Story-Based Approach on Immediate Vocabulary Acquisition............. 32
4.1.2 Effects of Story-Based Approach on Delayed Vocabulary Acquisition................. 32
4.1.3 Retention Rates of Vocabulary Acquisition in Delayed Tests of Two Methods.... 33
4.2 Discussion of the Results of the Experiment.................................................................... 34
4.2.1 Discussion of Effects of Story-Based Approach on Vocabulary Acquisition........ 34
4.2.2 Discussion of Retention Rates of Vocabulary Acquisition in Two Different Teaching Methods 36
Chapter Five Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Major Findings.................................................................................................................. 39
5.2 Pedagogical Implications.................................................................................................. 40
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies............................................................. 41
References.................................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix I: PPT : Identification of Fifty Words...................................................................... 49
Appendix II: The Story in the Teacher’s Storytelling Class..................................................... 50
Appendix III: Immediate Vocabulary Test................................................................................ 51
Appendix IV: Delayed Vocabulary Test.................................................................................... 53
List of Tables
Table 3. 1 Differences in senior high school entrance examination between two classes...... 25
Table 3. 2 A sample test regarding one word.......................................................................... 28
Table 3. 3 Description of data collection in immediate and delayed tests............................. 28
Table 3. 4 Scoring method of the vocabulary tests................................................................. 29
Table 4. 1 Differences in immediate vocabulary acquisition between two classes................. 31
Table 4. 2 Differences in delayed vocabulary acquisition between two classes..................... 32
Table 4. 3 Retention rate of target words in delayed test of both classes.............................. 32
Table 4. 4 Comparison of retention rates between the two classes........................................ 33
Table 3. 1 Differences in senior high school entrance examination between two classes...... 25
Table 3. 2 A sample test regarding one word.......................................................................... 28
Table 3. 3 Description of data collection in immediate and delayed tests............................. 28
Table 3. 4 Scoring method of the vocabulary tests................................................................. 29
Table 4. 1 Differences in immediate vocabulary acquisition between two classes................. 31
Table 4. 2 Differences in delayed vocabulary acquisition between two classes..................... 32
Table 4. 3 Retention rate of target words in delayed test of both classes.............................. 32
Table 4. 4 Comparison of retention rates between the two classes........................................ 33
Chapter One Introduction
This chapter begins with a general description of the study, and then demonstrates the motivations and significance of the study, followed by the overall structure of the thesis.
1.1 General Description of the Study
The present study was carried out to investigate the effect of story-based approach on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition. The theories on which this study was based were Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis, Context Theory, Depth of Processing Model, and Constructivist Theory. The research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows:
1. Which method is more effective in immediate vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
2. Which method is more effective in delayed vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
3. To what extent can immediate vocabulary acquisition be retained in the delayed test in terms of two methods?
Participants in this study consisted of 97 students from two parallel classes of Grade One at Yangzhou Jiangsu Business Higher Vocational School. They were chosen as participants for three reasons. First, the researcher taught both of the classes which minimized the effect of irrelevant factors. Second, the students had similar educational background and English level. Last, they were cooperative, which guaranteed the study be conducted smoothly. This study implored two instruments, namely, immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test which were adapted and translated from Paribakht & Wesche’s Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). The target words were chosen according to the principles of frequency and need from Book Two which they would use the next semester. The researcher made sure that none of the students knew any one of the chosen words. Story for the teacher’s storytelling class, namely, Class One, was adapted from a story skeleton edited by Morgan and Rinvolucri. Some details were added into the skeleton to make it complete, and some expressions were modified to make it more accessible to the students. All the target words were woven into the story, been distributed evenly in four paragraphs of the body of the story. Class Two, the learner’s story-writing class, used the same examples and sentences as those of Class One. The data were collected from immediate test and delayed test. One girl in Class One was absent in the delayed test, and two students in Class Two were absent in the immediate test, so the total valid number is 94. Data analysis involved scoring, Independent-samples T-test, and calculation of the retention rates, which were employed to see whether there were statistically significant differences between Class One and Class Two in both immediate and delayed tests, and also their retention rates of acquired vocabulary.
1.2 Motivations for the Study
The researcher was motivated to do this study for three reasons: the importance of vocabulary acquisition in vocational schools, the researcher’s personal experiences, and inadequate studies in this area.
Firstly, vocabulary acquisition is a necessary part, yet a difficult problem in second language acquisition especially in vocational schools. As Wilkins (1972) noted that without grammar very little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. The importance of vocabulary in language learning is beyond doubt. According to the New English Curriculum for Vocational Schools issued in 2011, vocational school students should know around 2000 basic words and 200 phrases and collocations, among which 800 to 1000 can be used in speaking and writing. Besides, the new curriculum emphasizes vocabulary uses in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, which means students’ abilities to use English are attached more importance to. Therefore, in order to fulfill the requirements of the new curriculum, vocabulary instruction should adopt more effective approaches.
Secondly, the author has been teaching in a vocational school for one year, and knows that many students have trouble remembering new words. Vocational school students basically perform badly in learning and exams. They choose to enter vocational schools mainly to master a skill and avoid the pressure from academic studies. Very few of them are interested in English learning. And less have the ability to learn it well. Teachers seldom try to improve the situation since they are used to it. Vocabulary teaching usually follows the fixed pattern by reading, explanation and practice which fails to attract students’ attention. In addition, this teaching model separates words and context, which makes it dull and hard to acquire words. The students gradually lose interests in English learning. It is common to see students absentminded in class. It is extremely difficult to capture their attention. Thus the most important missions for vocational school teachers are to arouse students’ motivation in learning, and to explore more efficient ways for students to acquire vocabulary.
Thirdly, there are some researches on story-based approach and its effects on language learning in primary schools. However, as for vocational schools, very few researches have done on story-based approach. Moreover, Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD) (1994-2015) and Chinese Doctoral Dissertation & Master’s Theses Full-text Database (CDMD) (1999-2015) have been surveyed, there is no research investigating the different effects of two story-based methods on vocabulary acquisition before this study. Therefore, it is challenging and rewording for the author to conduct the present research.
1.3 Significance of the Study
This study is theoretically and practically significant.
Theoretically, this study can provide some new insights into story-based approach, and can help enrich existing theories on vocabulary acquisition, especially for vocational schools.
Practically, this study can help better understand how to apply story-based approach to vocabulary acquisition more effectively among vocational school students at different proficiency levels. Moreover, it can offer valuable pedagogical suggestions to English teachers.
1.4 Overall Structure of the Thesis
The whole thesis is made up of 5 chapters.
Chapter One is an introduction, in which the general description, the motivations, the significance and the structure of the thesis are presented.
Chapter Two is the literature review, which serves as theoretical background to the study. It explains the definition of some key terms concerning story-based approach, then presents theoretical foundations of this study, and reviews related previous studies both at home and abroad.
Chapter three is the research methodology which consists two sections. Section one presents the research questions. Section two describes the research design, including participants, choice of target words, treatments, instruments, data collection and data analysis.
Chapter Four presents the results of the study in terms of research questions along with relevant discussions.
Chapter Five is the conclusion part. It summarizes the key findings, points out pedagogical implications of the research findings and the limitations in this study and makes some recommendations for future research.
This chapter begins with a general description of the study, and then demonstrates the motivations and significance of the study, followed by the overall structure of the thesis.
1.1 General Description of the Study
The present study was carried out to investigate the effect of story-based approach on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition. The theories on which this study was based were Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis, Context Theory, Depth of Processing Model, and Constructivist Theory. The research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows:
1. Which method is more effective in immediate vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
2. Which method is more effective in delayed vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
3. To what extent can immediate vocabulary acquisition be retained in the delayed test in terms of two methods?
Participants in this study consisted of 97 students from two parallel classes of Grade One at Yangzhou Jiangsu Business Higher Vocational School. They were chosen as participants for three reasons. First, the researcher taught both of the classes which minimized the effect of irrelevant factors. Second, the students had similar educational background and English level. Last, they were cooperative, which guaranteed the study be conducted smoothly. This study implored two instruments, namely, immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test which were adapted and translated from Paribakht & Wesche’s Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). The target words were chosen according to the principles of frequency and need from Book Two which they would use the next semester. The researcher made sure that none of the students knew any one of the chosen words. Story for the teacher’s storytelling class, namely, Class One, was adapted from a story skeleton edited by Morgan and Rinvolucri. Some details were added into the skeleton to make it complete, and some expressions were modified to make it more accessible to the students. All the target words were woven into the story, been distributed evenly in four paragraphs of the body of the story. Class Two, the learner’s story-writing class, used the same examples and sentences as those of Class One. The data were collected from immediate test and delayed test. One girl in Class One was absent in the delayed test, and two students in Class Two were absent in the immediate test, so the total valid number is 94. Data analysis involved scoring, Independent-samples T-test, and calculation of the retention rates, which were employed to see whether there were statistically significant differences between Class One and Class Two in both immediate and delayed tests, and also their retention rates of acquired vocabulary.
1.2 Motivations for the Study
The researcher was motivated to do this study for three reasons: the importance of vocabulary acquisition in vocational schools, the researcher’s personal experiences, and inadequate studies in this area.
Firstly, vocabulary acquisition is a necessary part, yet a difficult problem in second language acquisition especially in vocational schools. As Wilkins (1972) noted that without grammar very little can be conveyed; without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed. The importance of vocabulary in language learning is beyond doubt. According to the New English Curriculum for Vocational Schools issued in 2011, vocational school students should know around 2000 basic words and 200 phrases and collocations, among which 800 to 1000 can be used in speaking and writing. Besides, the new curriculum emphasizes vocabulary uses in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, which means students’ abilities to use English are attached more importance to. Therefore, in order to fulfill the requirements of the new curriculum, vocabulary instruction should adopt more effective approaches.
Secondly, the author has been teaching in a vocational school for one year, and knows that many students have trouble remembering new words. Vocational school students basically perform badly in learning and exams. They choose to enter vocational schools mainly to master a skill and avoid the pressure from academic studies. Very few of them are interested in English learning. And less have the ability to learn it well. Teachers seldom try to improve the situation since they are used to it. Vocabulary teaching usually follows the fixed pattern by reading, explanation and practice which fails to attract students’ attention. In addition, this teaching model separates words and context, which makes it dull and hard to acquire words. The students gradually lose interests in English learning. It is common to see students absentminded in class. It is extremely difficult to capture their attention. Thus the most important missions for vocational school teachers are to arouse students’ motivation in learning, and to explore more efficient ways for students to acquire vocabulary.
Thirdly, there are some researches on story-based approach and its effects on language learning in primary schools. However, as for vocational schools, very few researches have done on story-based approach. Moreover, Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD) (1994-2015) and Chinese Doctoral Dissertation & Master’s Theses Full-text Database (CDMD) (1999-2015) have been surveyed, there is no research investigating the different effects of two story-based methods on vocabulary acquisition before this study. Therefore, it is challenging and rewording for the author to conduct the present research.
1.3 Significance of the Study
This study is theoretically and practically significant.
Theoretically, this study can provide some new insights into story-based approach, and can help enrich existing theories on vocabulary acquisition, especially for vocational schools.
Practically, this study can help better understand how to apply story-based approach to vocabulary acquisition more effectively among vocational school students at different proficiency levels. Moreover, it can offer valuable pedagogical suggestions to English teachers.
1.4 Overall Structure of the Thesis
The whole thesis is made up of 5 chapters.
Chapter One is an introduction, in which the general description, the motivations, the significance and the structure of the thesis are presented.
Chapter Two is the literature review, which serves as theoretical background to the study. It explains the definition of some key terms concerning story-based approach, then presents theoretical foundations of this study, and reviews related previous studies both at home and abroad.
Chapter three is the research methodology which consists two sections. Section one presents the research questions. Section two describes the research design, including participants, choice of target words, treatments, instruments, data collection and data analysis.
Chapter Four presents the results of the study in terms of research questions along with relevant discussions.
Chapter Five is the conclusion part. It summarizes the key findings, points out pedagogical implications of the research findings and the limitations in this study and makes some recommendations for future research.
Chapter Two Literature Review
In this chapter, the literature that has a significant influence upon the study is reviewed, including the definition of some key terms in story-based approach, theoretical foundations of this study, and the related previous studies both at home and abroad.
2.1 Key Terms in This Study
This section clarifies some key terms: story-based approach, storytelling method, the PACE model, digital storytelling method, and receptive and productive knowledge of vocabulary.
2.1.1 Story-Based Approach
The story-based approach applies stories which are carefully selected to satisfy the needs of certain students and to appeal them in (Ellis & Brewster, 2002). The stories are made up of everyday language that is specially modified for the learners, and they also contain specific topic-related expressions that arise from the story and that are vital to the learners. Story-based approach emphasizes discourse that is natural, and encourages students to comprehend meaningful samples of discourse in the course of the whole lesson. Once students experience and understand the general idea of the story, then they are better able to deal with the individual parts (Adair-Hauck & Cumo-Johanssen, 1997; Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Fountas & Hannigan, 1989; Hughes & McCarthy, 1998). Therefore, it invites the learners to experience and construct the meanings and uses of language through complete discourse, in the form of a story. The learners, from the very beginning of the lesson, render the story understandable with the instructor through engaging in joint problem-solving activities and interactions which are authentic uses of the target language. With the help of using pictures, gestures, and mime, the instructor provides scaffolds to help the learners comprehend the story. Once the learners achieve a good comprehension of the story, the instructor can then safely attract the learners’ attention on various linguistic elements (Shrum & Glisan, 2010). From the above explanation, we can see that story-based approach applies stories which are carefully selected to satisfy the needs of certain students and to appeal them and help them master the target language through various activities in an effective, efficient, and appealing way.
2.1.1.1 Storytelling Method
Storytelling is one of the methods which are widely applied in second language instruction , since telling stories orally is a natural way of passing information which stresses listening comprehension, reading and writing training. Reading stories aloud or listening to and interacting with a story-teller is basically a social experience (Britsch, 1992). Storytelling, as a cognitive skill, plays a crucial role in the process of human’s intellectual development (Kim, 1999). Studies keep proving that children who are frequently exposed to various stories are apt to develop more advanced vocabulary and syntactic complexity in oral language(Phillips, 2000; Roney, 1989;). The increases in listening skills, attention span, sequencing ability, accuracy of recall and fluency in writing are also confirmed development to some extent (Davis, 1982; Reed, 1987;). Friedberg (1994) claims that a more ordered sense of the world can be created with thoughts and ideas elicited by storytelling, as storytelling is a developmentally sensitive tool. He also believes that storytelling, besides accelerates receptive language development in reading and listening, promotes expressive language development in speech.
According to the ways stories are used in instruction, storytelling method can be divided into three types. First, story as a teaching tool. This method emphasizes the use of situations stories create. It aims to improve the efficiency of teaching by arousing students’ attention and interests, and facilitating thinking. In this way, storytelling acts as an assisting teaching strategy. The second type is stories as teaching contents. This view regards stories as the materials of teaching. Various kinds of activities, such as discussion, role-play, and retelling, are often designed after the telling of story to help students understand the story and consolidate target language. The third type makes the whole teaching process a story, emphasizing students’ overall senses of the plot, characters, and enlightenment for their own lives. The students and the teacher become the characters of the story. Through probing activities, the students experience the story, and meanwhile, analyze the hidden message behind the story.
Of the three types of storytelling method, this study applies the second one, regarding the story as teaching content. It co-responds with the widely used PACE Model developed by Donato and Adair-Hauck.
2.1.1.2 The PACE Model
The PACE model was proposed by Adair-Hauck, Donato and Cumo-Johannsen (2005) which is an acronym for a four-stage grammar teaching model assimilated into story-based approach. The PACE model makes use of integrated discourses, such as songs, poems, stories and so on, to set up authentic contexts where grammatical structures and their uses will be focused on. The four letters represent the four stages of the model. P stands for presentation, which presents an integrated discourse adapted by the teacher with target structures appearing repetitively and naturally. A represents attention. Students’ attention is turned to the target structures by the teacher’s eliciting of examples from the context presented in the previous stage. C stands for co-construction. The learners, under the guidance of the teacher, cooperate and negotiate to provide an explanation of the patterns of the target language points. E stands for extension. In this stage, the learners are offered the opportunities to take part in various activities to use the language patterns in authentic contexts. The figure below illustrates the four stages of the PACE model.
Figure 1 PACE: A story-based/guided participatory approach to language instruction (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005)
P: presentation
This stage presents the integrated discourse so as to construct a real-life context (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). It can be a story; the demonstration of real-life tasks like booking a ticket, looking for a job, or preparing for a picnic; an authentic document; or particular materials selected from students’ textbooks like narratives, dialogues, or stories if they are interesting and episodically organized. Discourses that include actions and events happening in stages are well suited for presentation because they are easy to demonstrate with actions, mime or TPR storytelling, and the students can follow them without great effort. The presentation, instead of giving grammar structures, consists of related and continues utterances intended to capture students’ interests and provide contexts for the learners to comprehend through negotiation and interaction. The presentation should also be appropriate to the learners’ development level and guarantee the target form is fully presented. The target structure ought to appear repetitively without making the language sound unnatural or artificial. The presentation had better be interactive. The teacher can guide learners to acquire the new element of target language through scaffolded participation of like repeating key phrases, teacher-learner role reversal in a TPR activity. This step may last for a part of the class, an entire class, or even several classes, depending on the story and the amount of negotiation work required to comprehend the language.
A: attention
This stage focus students’ attention on the target grammar structures used during the presentation stage (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). The teacher emphasizes the regularity of the language in the way of asking questions about the words, phrases and sentence patterns repeated in the story. Example sentences from the story can be prepared to be projected onto a screen, with key words and phrases circled or underlined. This stage aims at focusing students’ attention on the target structures without unnecessary elaboration. Another purpose of this step is to make sure that students’ attention is attracted to the target language form.
C: co-construction
Students and the teacher are supposed to co-construct grammatical explanations (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). After students’ attention is paid to the target structure, the teacher helps them to construct the grammatical structures by enabling them to contrast with what they know about their own language. Throughout this stage, the teacher guides students to guess, generalize, hypothesize or make predictions about the target form. The teacher is supposed to encourage the students to ask questions to come to generalizations of grammatical structures through observation, evaluation, analysis, and synthesis. Co-constructing grammatical explanations requires teacher to ask questions that are clear, well chosen, and direct. Teachers need to be aware that the help they provide has to go step by step and may range from brief hints about the target grammatical structures to explicit instruction if necessary (Aljaafreh, 1992; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). The learners may not be able to perceive the formal properties of language bases on teacher’s questions. Teachers need to assess the capabilities of the learners and assist them by offering as well as eliciting information when needed. Teachers are able to measure how much assistance is needed to attain the concept through listening to learner contributions in this stage. In this way, students can be able to solve problems in small groups or in pairs and report their findings to the whole class.
E: extension
The extension activity offers students chances to put their newly acquired language patterns into use creatively and interestingly, and integrate them into existing knowledge (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). Extension Activities are supposed to be entertaining, be related to the theme of the integrated discourse presented in the first stage in some way, and allow for creative self-expressions. The activities are not worksheets for students to fill in blanks; instead, they can be role-playing, games, interviews, or surveys. In addition, this stage provides the teacher a chance to deal with other aspects included in the integrated discourse which meet the goals of the curriculum, such as cultural and moral aspects (West & Donato, 1995). All in all, the extension activity closes the circle of the PACE lesson and puts the “whole” back into story-based language instruction.
The PACE model was originally put forward to teach grammar, especially the step of co-constructing an explanation. This study modified this step as consolidation to adjust to vocabulary instruction. Therefore, the four stages in this study are presentation, attention, consolidation, and extension.
2.1.1.3 Digital Storytelling
Digital storytelling is a technology application that assists learners in developing and sharing stories by incorporating digital images, computer-generated texts, videos, music, and voice narration (Hickman, Pollard-Durodola, & Vaughn, 2004; Robin, 2008). It allows learners to construct narrative or expository writing in a video format that plays on digital tools such as a computer or iPod (Skinner & Hagood, 2008). Robin (2008) explained, that digital storytelling allows computer users to become creative storytellers through the traditional processes of selecting a topic, conducting some research, writing a script, and developing an interesting story. Although the origin of digital storytelling started in the late 1980s, today’s advanced and accessible technologies (e.g., digital cameras, scanners) allow even young students to tell stories easily. Users can develop stories using free programs such as Microsoft Photostory or iMovie, making creation affordable and accessible (Rance-Roney, 2010; Robin, 2008).
The utilization of digital storytelling can be particularly useful to English language learners (ELLs) as it provides visual resources and offers ample speaking experience (Hickman et al., 2004; Rance-Roney, 2010). Images on the screen can help ELLs deliver accurate, detailed content, and the text insertion function within digital storytelling software can help students emphasize relevant, specific vocabulary. Before the actual recording, ELLs should be encouraged to practice their narrations several times to correct grammatical mistakes or pronunciation, assisting ELLs with the development of language fluency (Davis & McGrail, 2009).
Digital storytelling was unable to be applied in this study due to limited facilities. Therefore, it was changed to learner’s story-writing, which did not require the use of software or other digital applications.
2.1.2 Receptive Knowledge and Productive Knowledge of Vocabulary
The terms of receptive and productive knowledge gives a description of various situations of language knowledge and uses. When they are referred to vocabulary knowledge, all aspects of acquiring a word are described.
Receptive knowledge of vocabulary refers to the fact that a person can understand the words when read, heard or seen, while productive knowledge of vocabulary refers to a person’s ability to produce words which can match the intended meaning of the speaker or signer within appropriate contexts.
Paribakht & Wesche (1993) have developed A five-point Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) to describe different stages of vocabulary knowledge acquired.
I. I do not remember having seen this word before.
II. I have seen this word before, but I do not know what it means.
III. I have seen this word before, and I think it means ___________. (synonym or translation)
IV. I know this word. It means ___________. (synonym or translation)
V. I can use this word in a sentence: ___________________(if you do this section, please also do section IV)
VKS measures both the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge since it requires the production of a synonym or translation of a word but also the construction of a sentence.
According to Nation (2001), “receptive vocabulary is defined as the way the meaning of a word is retrieved and understood by the learner when he/she is exposed to written or oral input while productive vocabulary is defined as the process of retrieving receptive knowledge and producing the appropriate written or spoken language form to get meaning access”.
In this study, the author defines receptive knowledge of vocabulary as the ability to recognize a word and write down its meaning; while productive knowledge of vocabulary is the ability to use a word both grammatically correctly and semantically appropriately in a sentence. Both receptive knowledge and productive knowledge of vocabulary are measured in this study.
2.2 Theoretical Foundations in This Study
2.2.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
Central to Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition theories, the Input Hypothesis attempts to explain how we acquire a language. Krashen claims, “Humans acquire language in only one way: by understanding messages or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’” (Krashen, 1985). Krashen provides us with a model like this: We can understand input which contains structures a bit beyond the current level of competence at the next stage. This is the natural order we progress. Suppose the current level is “i”, then the next stage is “i+1” (stage a bit beyond the current level). With the help of context, Learners can understand the language points, including additional language information, understanding of the world, and language skills previously acquired. But acquisition occurs only if the learners understand materials containing “i+1”. This is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from the stage “i” to staged “i + 1”.
According to Krashen, the input hypothesis has two corollaries:
“(1) Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input.”
“(2) If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. That is to say, in the process of language learning, learners only need to pay attention to the input (what they hear and read). Because an internal language processor (which is called Language Acquisition Device) plays an important role in the language acquisition, not all the input they get is processed by learners. Therefore, only if the language input learners read or hear is comprehensible, it will help learners to acquire a language.”
According to the input hypothesis, the stories chosen should be suitable and slightly higher than the students’ existing language level. At the same time, the stories should be interesting which are easy to make the students concentrate on the meaning of the stories, instead of simply on the form. Teachers can use stories to create an interesting learning environment which offers opportunities for the students to expose to the language that will make them learn the language more efficiently.
2.2.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis
Doing research on Canadian Immersion Program for decades, Swain (1985), found second language learners, after many years learning only by receiving large amount of comprehensible input, can not use the target language properly or express themselves fluently . Second language learners are clearly identifiable as non-native speakers and writers through their speaking and writing (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Observations have led Swain to conclude that it is not sufficient for the L2 learners to achieve a high level of L2 proficiency only with large amount of comprehensible input. She concludes that “the role of comprehensible output (following Krashen’s comprehensible input) is, at minimum, to provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner form a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it” (Swain, 1985). According to Swain (1985), “producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning”.
The important part of Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis is the claim that only when the learner is pushed can the production aid language acquisition. Therefore, just providing learners chances to use target language in speaking and writing is not sufficient to guarantee acquisition. While producing the target language, learners will occasionally be aware of, or notice, a linguistic problem, either externally or internally attributable. Noticing a problem helps to motivate learners to change their output.
She proposed the output hypothesis with the idea of comprehensible output in 1993. “What students need,” Swain argues, “is not comprehensible output if they are to improve only comprehensible input but also both fluency and accuracy in their delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed accurately, coherently, and appropriately” (Swain & Lapkin, 1989). Comprehensible output plays unique roles in SLA. It should not be viewed merely as a sign of the acquisition of knowledge, but as a sign of learning while working.
Thus, output hypothesis is proposed relating to the production of second language learners and highlighting comprehensible output. Swain knows well that output plays an essential role in second language acquisition, and attaches three important functions to comprehensible output, namely, noticing/triggering function, hypothesis testing function, and meta-linguistic function.
2.2.3 Context Theory
The definition of context is originally brought up by a Polish professor of anthropology, Bronislaw Malinowski, who believes that “context is the immediate context of utterance, context is the general context of situation and context is the broader context of culture; utterance is combined with environment closely, environment is so important for listeners and speakers” (Malinowski, 1923). Words will not have meanings without context. Firth, one of the founders of London School, accepted Malinowski’s view. Besides, he inherited and advanced Malinowski’s view. Firth applied Malinowski’s “context of situation” theory to linguistics. He believes that the context of situation includes not only the context of human activity in certain circumstances but also participants’ personal history and entire cultural setting of communication (Firth, 1957). Halliday (1964) inherited Malinowski’s and Firth’s ideas of context and he regarded context not only as a context within the discourse, but as situational factors beyond the text. According to Halliday, situational factors are divided into three kinds, namely, field, tenor and mode. Meanwhile, he illustrates clearly the complementary relationship between situational context and cultural context. Moreover, he regards situational context as specific examples of cultural context, and the cultural context as the situational context of abstract system.
Text creates its own context. Communications not only depend on the context for their interpretation, they also change that context. Context is the guideline of the usage of language. However, any text is the product of certain context. For example, reading is the process of understanding target texts. If the reader cannot correctly comprehend the context with which the writer creates the text, he fails to understand the text in line with the writer’s intention. The essential conditions of understanding text include situation, common knowledge and the subjective factors of the participants. Steffensen (1986), in an experiment, invited Indian students who learnt English and American students who did not know about India to read a text about Indian culture. They were required to recollect the plot after reading. He found that in the understanding of the third “they” in the text, the Indian students whose linguistic competences were relatively weak could make correct judgments, while the American students whose linguistic competences were strong could not.
2.2.4 Depth of Processing Model
Craik and Lockhart (1972) claims that retention is determined by the depth of the analyses required to encode the input. Along the hierarchy, higher degrees of semantic or cognitive analyses are inevitably performed at deeper levels. Therefore, the Depth of Processing Hypothesis is presented as a series of hierarchical processing stages through which incoming information passes. The model suggests that memory-encoding operations should be conceptualized as the processes underlying perceptions and comprehension, and that retrieval was the corollary of encoding. Qualitative processes of perception and comprehension are reflected through remembering information, and deeper processing is associated with higher levels of subsequent memorization. The model proposes that memory trace can usefully be regarded as the byproduct of perceptual processing which is thought to be made up of a series of analyses (levels of processing). Stimulus, however, undertakes a series of analyses from early sensory processing to later semantic-associative operations. The elaboration of the resultant memory trace relies on the amount and qualitative nature of the perceptual analyses implemented on the stimulus. This durability of the memory trace is a function of depth of processing. That is, stimuli which are not given full attention to, or are analyzed only to a shallow sensory level, generate relatively transient memory traces. On the other hand, stimuli that receive full attention, be well analyzed, and enriched by associations or images can bring about a deeper encoding of the event, and a long-lasting trace.
The levels-of-processing effect can be modified by familiarity, transfer-appropriate processing, the self-reference effect, and the explicit nature of a stimulus, through manipulating mental processing depth factors. If a stimulus is highly compatible with preexisting semantic structures, it will have a higher recall value. This is owing to the fact that such a stimulus is closely related with prior encoded memories, which are activated depending on similarity in semantic network structure. Such activation advances cognitive analysis, strengthening memory representation. Specificity of processing describes the increased recall value of a stimulus when presented in its inputted method. For example, auditory stimuli hold the greatest recall value when the subjects are spoken, while visual stimuli, presented with images, gain the highest recall value. If a particular stimulus is related semantically to a subject, it can generate greater recall capacity which is described by the self-reference effect. This can be regarded as a corollary of the familiarity modifier, because stimuli that are particularly connected with an experience of a person will have far-flung activation in that person’s semantic network. Implicit memory tests are usually employed to measure a particular stimulus’s recall value according to later performance on stimulus-related tasks. During these tasks, the subject does not necessarily recall the stimulus explicitly, but the previous stimulus still affects later performance.
2.2.5 Constructivist Theory
Jean Piaget put forward the Constructivist theory which argues that knowledge is not an accurate representation of external objects, situations or events, but a mapping of actions and conceptual operations that had proven viable in the knowing subject’s experience. Knowledge should not be regarded as actual demonstration of the reality. It is a creation of students through contacting the world. According to Constructivist Theory, knowledge is seen as dynamic, constantly changing with one’s life experience which results in its subjective and temporary characteristics. Learners acquire information through two processes. On the one hand, by assimilation, learners incorporate new information absorbed from the environment with existing framework without changing it. On the other hand, once the learners’ original cognitive structure cannot adjust to the external stimuli, accommodation of reframing cognitive structure occurs. That is to say, cognitive structure is constructed through the processes of assimilation and accommodation, developing through the cycle of balance-unbalance-new balance. Constructivism suggests knowledge be constructed based on learners’ original cognitive structures, experiences and believes. In Piaget’s view, learning is the result of interaction which goes under the premise that there is non-equilibrium between a person’s existing knowledge and new received information.
According to the Social Constructivism, learning is an active and social process which invents ideas rather than mechanically accumulates facts. It is through rethinking old ideas that meaningful learning occurs, and it helps to reach new conclusions when the old ideas conflict with the new ones. The learners are not passive recipients of knowledge, and the teachers cannot pass on the knowledge, so teaching should be a process of facilitating students’ own construction of knowledge. Learners should learn to discover facts,construct principles and concepts for themselves, hence it is important to encourage students to do guesswork and intuitive thinking. Individuals gain meanings through interacting with others and with the environment they live in. Knowledge is, on the one hand, a product of humans and on the other hand, socially and culturally constructed. Learning is neither a process that only takes place inside our minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviors that is shaped by external forces. Learning is a social process. Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities. Learning is the result of mental construction. Students learn by fitting new information together with what they already know. People learn best when they actively construct their own understanding.
2.3 Previous Studies on Story-Based Approach
This part included two sections which presented previous studies of story-based approach. The first section reviewed previous studies of different models of story-based approach both abroad and at home. The second section reviewed studies on values of story-based approach in language instruction, which included studies on how to improve the efficiency of story-based approach, the effects of story-based approach on language teaching and learning in general, and the effects of story-based approach on specific aspects of language teaching and learning.
2.3.1 Previous Studies on Models of Story-Based Approach
Since its emergence, story-based approach has been studied enthusiastically abroad. Many models for the approach were proposed and practiced. The Story-centered Curriculum, Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS), storyline method, and the PACE model were well known and widely used.
The Story-centered Curriculum was developed by Roger Schank and his colleagues. Students work in teams in virtual apprenticeships with experts producing deliverables that get increasingly complex throughout the year. Stories in the curriculum are rich, engaging, and motivating, providing a coherent context for learning. A sequence of tasks taking place in that story that serves to exercise key knowledge and skills in a principled progression and to encourage students’ acquisition in time. Schank (2007) described the story-centered curriculum in detail. Nemoto, Takeoka, Akahashi, Shibata, and Suzuki (2013) described three years (2009-2012) of their practice in the story-centered curriculum project that were initiated in 2008, and how to revise it.
Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling is one of the popular teaching method in America, which was developed from Total Physic Response (TPR) by Blaine Ray. It uses a mixture of reading and storytelling to help students learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. The method works in three steps: in step one the new vocabulary structures to be learned are taught using a combination of translation, gestures, and personalized questions; in step two those structures are used in a spoken class story; and finally, in step three, these same structures are used in a class reading. It enables students to acquire language in a relaxed atmosphere through constructing situations related to the stories. Blanton (2015) examined the effect of Communicative Language Teaching and Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. Beal (2011) explored storytelling in the use of Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS) with middle school and high school students. Foster (2011) studied instruction and teaching proficiency with TPRS. Susan (2013), and Hussein (2009) investigated the effects of Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling in improving students’ listening comprehension and speaking skills.
The storyline method was originated in England. The main feature that differentiates this approach from other learning and teaching strategies is that it recognizes the value of the existing knowledge of the learner. Thus, through key questioning, the pupils are encouraged to construct their own models of what is being studied before testing them with real evidence and research. The key questions are used in a sequence that generally creates a context within the framework of a story. Together, learner and teacher create a scenario through visualization; the making of collages, three-dimensional models and pictures employing a variety of art and craft techniques. These provide a visual stimulus for the skill-practice planned by the teacher. Even though the teacher is planning a sequence of activities through the designing of key questions, he or she does not know the details of the content, because these are created by the students. Effects of storyline method on students’ emotional and academic development were examined (Aysun & Kerimgil 2012, Strickland 2012, Kelleher & Horwitz 2006, Smogorzewska 2014). Melville & Pilot (2014) investigated the influences on a teacher’s uncertainty through the use of storyline methodology in science education.
As has introduced above, PACE is an acronym for a four-stage grammar teaching model assimilated into story-based approach, proposed by Adair-Hauck et al.. Groeneveld (2011) investigated the effects of the PACE model on the learning of seven grammatical terminologies in two senior high schools and found significant improvement. Toth, Wagner, and Moranski, (2012) studied some second language Spanish learners in an American senior high school, and examined how they formulated explicit grammar rules during three PACE lessons. Tian (2012) conducted a study on junior high school learners, and some other researches at the college level (Haight et al. 2007, Haight 2008, Vogel et al. 2011). These three researches employed both immediate tests as well as delayed tests to measure students’ immediate learning effects and delayed retention of grammatical structures.
Studies on story-based models in China also developed fast and fruitfully. The most prominent theoretical study is Sandwich Storytelling Approach by Ji Yuhua (1998). This approach is characterized by its choice of materials and words. It can stimulate students’ interests, enrich their imagination, and increase classroom participation. The approach adopted a bilingual method of telling the stories which are choicely selected (Ji, Xu & Cai. 2000). Chen (2004) proposed a four-step storytelling method, namely, warm up, presentation, practice, and follow-up. The proportion of Students who liked English and liked listening to English stories increased greatly under this approach. Xu (2005) replaced traditional statement sentences in stories by songs and chants, making storytelling more vivid and appealing. This method was implemented in a primary school with impressive teaching effects. Liu & Gao (2008) put forward a model based on psycho-linguistics which is composed of five steps: direct learning of vocabulary and grammar, leading in background information, presenting stories, comprehending stories, and story production. This model decreases difficulty of learning but fails to differentiate between traditional reading instructions. Yan (2009) proposed a guide-creation storytelling model which includes pondering the questions, rational instruction, application, and response and assessment. It was originally created for teaching Chinese, but employed in English instruction afterwards. Jia (2009) indicated that story-based approach could be divided into three parts: preparations before storytelling, instructions while telling the story, and activities after storytelling. It was aimed to improve timeliness in English teaching. Lei (2011) pointed out the defectiveness of storytelling and put forward story-theme teaching method which encouraged students to complete the story freely according to the situation the teacher created. Story-theme teaching method is similar to British storyline method. Zhang (2011) argued that story-based approach should focus on students’ life experiences and their cognition development. The mode she proposed makes the whole teaching procedure a story in which students develop their multi-subject abilities and enrich their emotions. Shi (2013) explored the mode of “Three-direction” Story-telling English teaching, which aimed to create suitable and interesting English teaching stories before class, to guide the students efficiently during the class, and to evaluate the students properly in order to encourage them and help them in English learning.
2.3.2 Previous Studies on Values of Story-Based Approach in Language Instruction
Much work has been done on how to improve storytelling and to make it more efficient for language teaching both abroad and at home. The most representative researcher abroad is Andrew Wright, the British educator, who pointed out that story-based approach was very excellent and put it into practice in India and made great achievements (Andrew, 1998). He wrote several inspiring books to give guidance on how to tell stories and design storytelling with various activities. Daniel (2012) provided practical instructions on skills and processes for integrating oral learning in the classroom, exploring the concept of storytelling as the social art of language and presenting a collection of tools and examples for developing skills and applying story telling techniques to address numerous curriculum goals. He also made illustrations and graphical representations of story processes. Ellis & Brewster (2002) gave a full treatment of a story-based approach, addressing both theoretical background and practical activities relating to actual stories. They highlighted the fact that a story-based approach can take the learner well beyond the improvement of English structural knowledge, to reach into cross-curricular areas including values education.
At home, various models have been proposed and practiced. Lu (2008) under the direction of the theories of “The three dimension goals”, focused on analysis of every process and content of the storytelling in the English learning of primary students. H. R. Li (2014) proposed a notion of “narrative teaching” though digging into the value of story teaching. Narrative teaching evaded the limitation of story teaching and absorbed the value of the story content. It regarded the story as the main teaching content and the source of teaching research, and magnified the storyline so that students could finish course study with enjoyment. Q. Wang (2014) proposed a “Five-Step English Storytelling” method. This method includes five steps: preparation, presentation, retelling, discussion and performance, which were applied to the teaching of six stories. The method was effective in improving students’ comprehensive competence and participation in class actives. L. Y. Wang & Jin (2008) followed the idea of story-centered curriculum and suggested to apply it to classroom teaching. Y. Lin (2009) summarized the benefits of story-based approach, and put forward ways to train student teachers to implement storytelling in their future instruction. Peng (2013) presented an instructional design of an English lesson for college students based on story-based approach, which included extensive listening, question-answer analysis, reciting, retelling, discussing, and summary writing. Fu (2006) introduced the Sandwich storytelling method and then proposed strategies that were often used in practice.
Overall effects of story-based approach on language learning were examined by a large number of researchers. Rossiter (2002) made connections between narratives and stories and applied a narrative orientation to adult teaching and learning by exploring how stories and autobiographical writing promote learning. Speaker, Taylor, & Kamen (2004) explored how consistent exposure to a variety of stories improved the specific literacy skills of vocabulary, grammar, length of utterance and sentence formation, and provided a framework for implementing the art of storytelling in individual classrooms. Norfolk, Stenson and Williams (2006) provided a research-based rationale for using activities with students to promote comprehension and stimulate upper-level thinking skills during the storytelling process. They also contributed suggestions on how to implement strategies that complement instructional units as well as satisfy national educational standards. Dogan (2007) taking a case study approach, examined the situation a group of teachers used digital storytelling in the classroom after trained in a workshop at the University of Houston. It turned out that digital storytelling is not only a powerful tool to convey desired messages around a topic or a subject area by the teachers but also a very powerful tool that has positive impacts on students and their performances. Motivation and engagement levels of the students were increased after the study. It laid a foundation for later studies to investigate the implementation of digital storytelling in classrooms. Hur & Suh (2012) examined effective ways to integrate an interactive whiteboard, podcast, and digital storytelling for language proficiency development in English language learners. Green (2013) proposed a case of digital storytelling built on an intersection of secondary language acquisition theory, language learning pedagogical understandings and instructional strategies, giving pedagogical considerations for digital storytelling with ELL students. Smeda, Dakich and Sharda (2014) did a research project aimed to create a constructivist learning environment with digital storytelling. The research investigated the pedagogical aspects of digital storytelling and the impact of digital storytelling on student learning when teachers and students use digital stories.
Xue (2013) investigated the different teaching effects between storytelling method and lecturing teaching method in a primary school. The results suggested that the storytelling method has a profound impact on students’ learning interests and academic achievement. Xu (2012) summarized several characteristics of story teaching in primary English classes. It also reflected the changes story teaching brought, such as teaching principles, teachers’ roles, interactions between teachers and students, students’ learning abilities and learning interests. M. Z. Wang (2008) analyzed the problems of English teaching of lower grades in a Primary school and probed into the causes. It proved that storytelling is an effective teaching method that has outstanding advantages. The pupils’ attitude towards English had changed and their enthusiasm for English had been provoked.
Many studies on effects of storytelling on specific language skills were carried out. Elley (1989) investigated different effects of vocabulary acquisition between stories read aloud to students’ with and without explanation of new words. Penno, Wilkinson and Moore (2002) evaluated the effect of listening to stories on children’s vocabulary growth. The findings were not sufficient to overcome the Matthew effect, as the higher ability children made greater vocabulary gains than lower ability children across all conditions. Waring and Takaki (2003) examined whether words of different frequency of occurrence rates were more likely to be learned and retained or forgotten. They found out that words can be learned incidentally but that most of the words were not learned. More frequent words were more likely to be learned and were more resistant to decay. Brown, Waring and Donkaewbua (2008) examined the rate at which English vocabulary was acquired from the 3 input modes of reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. The results showed that items occurring more frequently in the text were more likely to be learned and were more resistant to decay, which was corespondent with Waring and Takaki’s study. Wilkinson & Houston-Price (2013) explored the effectiveness of naturalistic classroom storytelling as an instrument for teaching new vocabulary to 6 to 9-year-old children. It examined whether learning was facilitated by encountering new words in single versus multiple story contexts. The findings clarify how classroom storytelling activities can be a highly effective means of promoting vocabulary development.
B. Li (2002) adopted storytelling in college English listening classes. Specific strategies on how to implement a storytelling method were provided based on the three steps of traditional listening instructions. Zhao (2006) introduced PACE model and its four steps. Suggestions on how to carry out the model to teach grammar were also supplied. Y. H. Li (2007) carried out a story-based English reading teaching in higher grades of a primary school. It employed stories to improve the students’ reading ability and reading interest, using English stories to help the students form the reading habits. Yue and Wu (2009) examined the effect of story-based English teaching on students’ self-discipline. Bai (2010) employed an empirical study on college students’ writing. The study found a correlation between students’ writing level and storytelling approach. The approach improved students’ writing quality, and their interests and attitude towards writing were also enhanced, but it was not evident for higher achievers. Tan (2013) taught grammar in the context using a story-theme method . And through the listening, reading, speaking, role-playing and making up the story, a meaningful way of using English was ensured. The students constructed grammar rules by themselves. B. L. Lin (2013) conducted a 16-week long experiment in a primary school to implement storytelling method in English teaching. It enhanced students’ interest in learning English and created a more active atmosphere in class, and it improved students’ ability of understanding, memorizing and using vocabulary. H. Li (2014) investigated the effects of the PACE model on short-term learning of English relative clauses, and the participants’ attitudes towards the PACE model and the reasons for it. It contributed to how to apply the PACE model among learners at different proficiency levels, and contributed to grammar instruction in China.
2.3.3 Comments on Previous Studies
It was noted that story-based approach plays an important role in language teaching and learning. Looking back on the development of story-based approach, it is not hard to realize that most researches both at home and abroad were targeted at primary school students. Few had done on vocational school students. Besides, the majority of the researches focused on either the effects of story-based approach on language learning or the comparison between the story-based approach and traditional approaches, but the comparison between two methods of story-based approach has not been discussed. In addition, some domestic researches studied the application of story-based approach to grammar instruction. Very few researches at home investigated the effects on vocabulary acquisition. However, they did not reveal vocabulary acquisition retention. Therefore, in order to explore the different immediate effects and delayed effects of two story-based methods on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition, the present study will utilize quantitative method in data collection and analysis. In the following chapter, the research design will be presented.
In this chapter, the literature that has a significant influence upon the study is reviewed, including the definition of some key terms in story-based approach, theoretical foundations of this study, and the related previous studies both at home and abroad.
2.1 Key Terms in This Study
This section clarifies some key terms: story-based approach, storytelling method, the PACE model, digital storytelling method, and receptive and productive knowledge of vocabulary.
2.1.1 Story-Based Approach
The story-based approach applies stories which are carefully selected to satisfy the needs of certain students and to appeal them in (Ellis & Brewster, 2002). The stories are made up of everyday language that is specially modified for the learners, and they also contain specific topic-related expressions that arise from the story and that are vital to the learners. Story-based approach emphasizes discourse that is natural, and encourages students to comprehend meaningful samples of discourse in the course of the whole lesson. Once students experience and understand the general idea of the story, then they are better able to deal with the individual parts (Adair-Hauck & Cumo-Johanssen, 1997; Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Fountas & Hannigan, 1989; Hughes & McCarthy, 1998). Therefore, it invites the learners to experience and construct the meanings and uses of language through complete discourse, in the form of a story. The learners, from the very beginning of the lesson, render the story understandable with the instructor through engaging in joint problem-solving activities and interactions which are authentic uses of the target language. With the help of using pictures, gestures, and mime, the instructor provides scaffolds to help the learners comprehend the story. Once the learners achieve a good comprehension of the story, the instructor can then safely attract the learners’ attention on various linguistic elements (Shrum & Glisan, 2010). From the above explanation, we can see that story-based approach applies stories which are carefully selected to satisfy the needs of certain students and to appeal them and help them master the target language through various activities in an effective, efficient, and appealing way.
2.1.1.1 Storytelling Method
Storytelling is one of the methods which are widely applied in second language instruction , since telling stories orally is a natural way of passing information which stresses listening comprehension, reading and writing training. Reading stories aloud or listening to and interacting with a story-teller is basically a social experience (Britsch, 1992). Storytelling, as a cognitive skill, plays a crucial role in the process of human’s intellectual development (Kim, 1999). Studies keep proving that children who are frequently exposed to various stories are apt to develop more advanced vocabulary and syntactic complexity in oral language(Phillips, 2000; Roney, 1989;). The increases in listening skills, attention span, sequencing ability, accuracy of recall and fluency in writing are also confirmed development to some extent (Davis, 1982; Reed, 1987;). Friedberg (1994) claims that a more ordered sense of the world can be created with thoughts and ideas elicited by storytelling, as storytelling is a developmentally sensitive tool. He also believes that storytelling, besides accelerates receptive language development in reading and listening, promotes expressive language development in speech.
According to the ways stories are used in instruction, storytelling method can be divided into three types. First, story as a teaching tool. This method emphasizes the use of situations stories create. It aims to improve the efficiency of teaching by arousing students’ attention and interests, and facilitating thinking. In this way, storytelling acts as an assisting teaching strategy. The second type is stories as teaching contents. This view regards stories as the materials of teaching. Various kinds of activities, such as discussion, role-play, and retelling, are often designed after the telling of story to help students understand the story and consolidate target language. The third type makes the whole teaching process a story, emphasizing students’ overall senses of the plot, characters, and enlightenment for their own lives. The students and the teacher become the characters of the story. Through probing activities, the students experience the story, and meanwhile, analyze the hidden message behind the story.
Of the three types of storytelling method, this study applies the second one, regarding the story as teaching content. It co-responds with the widely used PACE Model developed by Donato and Adair-Hauck.
2.1.1.2 The PACE Model
The PACE model was proposed by Adair-Hauck, Donato and Cumo-Johannsen (2005) which is an acronym for a four-stage grammar teaching model assimilated into story-based approach. The PACE model makes use of integrated discourses, such as songs, poems, stories and so on, to set up authentic contexts where grammatical structures and their uses will be focused on. The four letters represent the four stages of the model. P stands for presentation, which presents an integrated discourse adapted by the teacher with target structures appearing repetitively and naturally. A represents attention. Students’ attention is turned to the target structures by the teacher’s eliciting of examples from the context presented in the previous stage. C stands for co-construction. The learners, under the guidance of the teacher, cooperate and negotiate to provide an explanation of the patterns of the target language points. E stands for extension. In this stage, the learners are offered the opportunities to take part in various activities to use the language patterns in authentic contexts. The figure below illustrates the four stages of the PACE model.
 |
Figure 1 PACE: A story-based/guided participatory approach to language instruction (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005)
P: presentation
This stage presents the integrated discourse so as to construct a real-life context (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). It can be a story; the demonstration of real-life tasks like booking a ticket, looking for a job, or preparing for a picnic; an authentic document; or particular materials selected from students’ textbooks like narratives, dialogues, or stories if they are interesting and episodically organized. Discourses that include actions and events happening in stages are well suited for presentation because they are easy to demonstrate with actions, mime or TPR storytelling, and the students can follow them without great effort. The presentation, instead of giving grammar structures, consists of related and continues utterances intended to capture students’ interests and provide contexts for the learners to comprehend through negotiation and interaction. The presentation should also be appropriate to the learners’ development level and guarantee the target form is fully presented. The target structure ought to appear repetitively without making the language sound unnatural or artificial. The presentation had better be interactive. The teacher can guide learners to acquire the new element of target language through scaffolded participation of like repeating key phrases, teacher-learner role reversal in a TPR activity. This step may last for a part of the class, an entire class, or even several classes, depending on the story and the amount of negotiation work required to comprehend the language.
A: attention
This stage focus students’ attention on the target grammar structures used during the presentation stage (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). The teacher emphasizes the regularity of the language in the way of asking questions about the words, phrases and sentence patterns repeated in the story. Example sentences from the story can be prepared to be projected onto a screen, with key words and phrases circled or underlined. This stage aims at focusing students’ attention on the target structures without unnecessary elaboration. Another purpose of this step is to make sure that students’ attention is attracted to the target language form.
C: co-construction
Students and the teacher are supposed to co-construct grammatical explanations (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). After students’ attention is paid to the target structure, the teacher helps them to construct the grammatical structures by enabling them to contrast with what they know about their own language. Throughout this stage, the teacher guides students to guess, generalize, hypothesize or make predictions about the target form. The teacher is supposed to encourage the students to ask questions to come to generalizations of grammatical structures through observation, evaluation, analysis, and synthesis. Co-constructing grammatical explanations requires teacher to ask questions that are clear, well chosen, and direct. Teachers need to be aware that the help they provide has to go step by step and may range from brief hints about the target grammatical structures to explicit instruction if necessary (Aljaafreh, 1992; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). The learners may not be able to perceive the formal properties of language bases on teacher’s questions. Teachers need to assess the capabilities of the learners and assist them by offering as well as eliciting information when needed. Teachers are able to measure how much assistance is needed to attain the concept through listening to learner contributions in this stage. In this way, students can be able to solve problems in small groups or in pairs and report their findings to the whole class.
E: extension
The extension activity offers students chances to put their newly acquired language patterns into use creatively and interestingly, and integrate them into existing knowledge (Adair-Hauck et al., 2005). Extension Activities are supposed to be entertaining, be related to the theme of the integrated discourse presented in the first stage in some way, and allow for creative self-expressions. The activities are not worksheets for students to fill in blanks; instead, they can be role-playing, games, interviews, or surveys. In addition, this stage provides the teacher a chance to deal with other aspects included in the integrated discourse which meet the goals of the curriculum, such as cultural and moral aspects (West & Donato, 1995). All in all, the extension activity closes the circle of the PACE lesson and puts the “whole” back into story-based language instruction.
The PACE model was originally put forward to teach grammar, especially the step of co-constructing an explanation. This study modified this step as consolidation to adjust to vocabulary instruction. Therefore, the four stages in this study are presentation, attention, consolidation, and extension.
2.1.1.3 Digital Storytelling
Digital storytelling is a technology application that assists learners in developing and sharing stories by incorporating digital images, computer-generated texts, videos, music, and voice narration (Hickman, Pollard-Durodola, & Vaughn, 2004; Robin, 2008). It allows learners to construct narrative or expository writing in a video format that plays on digital tools such as a computer or iPod (Skinner & Hagood, 2008). Robin (2008) explained, that digital storytelling allows computer users to become creative storytellers through the traditional processes of selecting a topic, conducting some research, writing a script, and developing an interesting story. Although the origin of digital storytelling started in the late 1980s, today’s advanced and accessible technologies (e.g., digital cameras, scanners) allow even young students to tell stories easily. Users can develop stories using free programs such as Microsoft Photostory or iMovie, making creation affordable and accessible (Rance-Roney, 2010; Robin, 2008).
The utilization of digital storytelling can be particularly useful to English language learners (ELLs) as it provides visual resources and offers ample speaking experience (Hickman et al., 2004; Rance-Roney, 2010). Images on the screen can help ELLs deliver accurate, detailed content, and the text insertion function within digital storytelling software can help students emphasize relevant, specific vocabulary. Before the actual recording, ELLs should be encouraged to practice their narrations several times to correct grammatical mistakes or pronunciation, assisting ELLs with the development of language fluency (Davis & McGrail, 2009).
Digital storytelling was unable to be applied in this study due to limited facilities. Therefore, it was changed to learner’s story-writing, which did not require the use of software or other digital applications.
2.1.2 Receptive Knowledge and Productive Knowledge of Vocabulary
The terms of receptive and productive knowledge gives a description of various situations of language knowledge and uses. When they are referred to vocabulary knowledge, all aspects of acquiring a word are described.
Receptive knowledge of vocabulary refers to the fact that a person can understand the words when read, heard or seen, while productive knowledge of vocabulary refers to a person’s ability to produce words which can match the intended meaning of the speaker or signer within appropriate contexts.
Paribakht & Wesche (1993) have developed A five-point Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) to describe different stages of vocabulary knowledge acquired.
I. I do not remember having seen this word before.
II. I have seen this word before, but I do not know what it means.
III. I have seen this word before, and I think it means ___________. (synonym or translation)
IV. I know this word. It means ___________. (synonym or translation)
V. I can use this word in a sentence: ___________________(if you do this section, please also do section IV)
VKS measures both the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge since it requires the production of a synonym or translation of a word but also the construction of a sentence.
According to Nation (2001), “receptive vocabulary is defined as the way the meaning of a word is retrieved and understood by the learner when he/she is exposed to written or oral input while productive vocabulary is defined as the process of retrieving receptive knowledge and producing the appropriate written or spoken language form to get meaning access”.
In this study, the author defines receptive knowledge of vocabulary as the ability to recognize a word and write down its meaning; while productive knowledge of vocabulary is the ability to use a word both grammatically correctly and semantically appropriately in a sentence. Both receptive knowledge and productive knowledge of vocabulary are measured in this study.
2.2 Theoretical Foundations in This Study
2.2.1 Krashen’s Input Hypothesis
Central to Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition theories, the Input Hypothesis attempts to explain how we acquire a language. Krashen claims, “Humans acquire language in only one way: by understanding messages or by receiving ‘comprehensible input’” (Krashen, 1985). Krashen provides us with a model like this: We can understand input which contains structures a bit beyond the current level of competence at the next stage. This is the natural order we progress. Suppose the current level is “i”, then the next stage is “i+1” (stage a bit beyond the current level). With the help of context, Learners can understand the language points, including additional language information, understanding of the world, and language skills previously acquired. But acquisition occurs only if the learners understand materials containing “i+1”. This is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to move from the stage “i” to staged “i + 1”.
According to Krashen, the input hypothesis has two corollaries:
“(1) Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input.”
“(2) If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. That is to say, in the process of language learning, learners only need to pay attention to the input (what they hear and read). Because an internal language processor (which is called Language Acquisition Device) plays an important role in the language acquisition, not all the input they get is processed by learners. Therefore, only if the language input learners read or hear is comprehensible, it will help learners to acquire a language.”
According to the input hypothesis, the stories chosen should be suitable and slightly higher than the students’ existing language level. At the same time, the stories should be interesting which are easy to make the students concentrate on the meaning of the stories, instead of simply on the form. Teachers can use stories to create an interesting learning environment which offers opportunities for the students to expose to the language that will make them learn the language more efficiently.
2.2.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis
Doing research on Canadian Immersion Program for decades, Swain (1985), found second language learners, after many years learning only by receiving large amount of comprehensible input, can not use the target language properly or express themselves fluently . Second language learners are clearly identifiable as non-native speakers and writers through their speaking and writing (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Observations have led Swain to conclude that it is not sufficient for the L2 learners to achieve a high level of L2 proficiency only with large amount of comprehensible input. She concludes that “the role of comprehensible output (following Krashen’s comprehensible input) is, at minimum, to provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful use, to test out hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner form a purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it” (Swain, 1985). According to Swain (1985), “producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her own intended meaning”.
The important part of Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis is the claim that only when the learner is pushed can the production aid language acquisition. Therefore, just providing learners chances to use target language in speaking and writing is not sufficient to guarantee acquisition. While producing the target language, learners will occasionally be aware of, or notice, a linguistic problem, either externally or internally attributable. Noticing a problem helps to motivate learners to change their output.
She proposed the output hypothesis with the idea of comprehensible output in 1993. “What students need,” Swain argues, “is not comprehensible output if they are to improve only comprehensible input but also both fluency and accuracy in their delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed accurately, coherently, and appropriately” (Swain & Lapkin, 1989). Comprehensible output plays unique roles in SLA. It should not be viewed merely as a sign of the acquisition of knowledge, but as a sign of learning while working.
Thus, output hypothesis is proposed relating to the production of second language learners and highlighting comprehensible output. Swain knows well that output plays an essential role in second language acquisition, and attaches three important functions to comprehensible output, namely, noticing/triggering function, hypothesis testing function, and meta-linguistic function.
2.2.3 Context Theory
The definition of context is originally brought up by a Polish professor of anthropology, Bronislaw Malinowski, who believes that “context is the immediate context of utterance, context is the general context of situation and context is the broader context of culture; utterance is combined with environment closely, environment is so important for listeners and speakers” (Malinowski, 1923). Words will not have meanings without context. Firth, one of the founders of London School, accepted Malinowski’s view. Besides, he inherited and advanced Malinowski’s view. Firth applied Malinowski’s “context of situation” theory to linguistics. He believes that the context of situation includes not only the context of human activity in certain circumstances but also participants’ personal history and entire cultural setting of communication (Firth, 1957). Halliday (1964) inherited Malinowski’s and Firth’s ideas of context and he regarded context not only as a context within the discourse, but as situational factors beyond the text. According to Halliday, situational factors are divided into three kinds, namely, field, tenor and mode. Meanwhile, he illustrates clearly the complementary relationship between situational context and cultural context. Moreover, he regards situational context as specific examples of cultural context, and the cultural context as the situational context of abstract system.
Text creates its own context. Communications not only depend on the context for their interpretation, they also change that context. Context is the guideline of the usage of language. However, any text is the product of certain context. For example, reading is the process of understanding target texts. If the reader cannot correctly comprehend the context with which the writer creates the text, he fails to understand the text in line with the writer’s intention. The essential conditions of understanding text include situation, common knowledge and the subjective factors of the participants. Steffensen (1986), in an experiment, invited Indian students who learnt English and American students who did not know about India to read a text about Indian culture. They were required to recollect the plot after reading. He found that in the understanding of the third “they” in the text, the Indian students whose linguistic competences were relatively weak could make correct judgments, while the American students whose linguistic competences were strong could not.
2.2.4 Depth of Processing Model
Craik and Lockhart (1972) claims that retention is determined by the depth of the analyses required to encode the input. Along the hierarchy, higher degrees of semantic or cognitive analyses are inevitably performed at deeper levels. Therefore, the Depth of Processing Hypothesis is presented as a series of hierarchical processing stages through which incoming information passes. The model suggests that memory-encoding operations should be conceptualized as the processes underlying perceptions and comprehension, and that retrieval was the corollary of encoding. Qualitative processes of perception and comprehension are reflected through remembering information, and deeper processing is associated with higher levels of subsequent memorization. The model proposes that memory trace can usefully be regarded as the byproduct of perceptual processing which is thought to be made up of a series of analyses (levels of processing). Stimulus, however, undertakes a series of analyses from early sensory processing to later semantic-associative operations. The elaboration of the resultant memory trace relies on the amount and qualitative nature of the perceptual analyses implemented on the stimulus. This durability of the memory trace is a function of depth of processing. That is, stimuli which are not given full attention to, or are analyzed only to a shallow sensory level, generate relatively transient memory traces. On the other hand, stimuli that receive full attention, be well analyzed, and enriched by associations or images can bring about a deeper encoding of the event, and a long-lasting trace.
The levels-of-processing effect can be modified by familiarity, transfer-appropriate processing, the self-reference effect, and the explicit nature of a stimulus, through manipulating mental processing depth factors. If a stimulus is highly compatible with preexisting semantic structures, it will have a higher recall value. This is owing to the fact that such a stimulus is closely related with prior encoded memories, which are activated depending on similarity in semantic network structure. Such activation advances cognitive analysis, strengthening memory representation. Specificity of processing describes the increased recall value of a stimulus when presented in its inputted method. For example, auditory stimuli hold the greatest recall value when the subjects are spoken, while visual stimuli, presented with images, gain the highest recall value. If a particular stimulus is related semantically to a subject, it can generate greater recall capacity which is described by the self-reference effect. This can be regarded as a corollary of the familiarity modifier, because stimuli that are particularly connected with an experience of a person will have far-flung activation in that person’s semantic network. Implicit memory tests are usually employed to measure a particular stimulus’s recall value according to later performance on stimulus-related tasks. During these tasks, the subject does not necessarily recall the stimulus explicitly, but the previous stimulus still affects later performance.
2.2.5 Constructivist Theory
Jean Piaget put forward the Constructivist theory which argues that knowledge is not an accurate representation of external objects, situations or events, but a mapping of actions and conceptual operations that had proven viable in the knowing subject’s experience. Knowledge should not be regarded as actual demonstration of the reality. It is a creation of students through contacting the world. According to Constructivist Theory, knowledge is seen as dynamic, constantly changing with one’s life experience which results in its subjective and temporary characteristics. Learners acquire information through two processes. On the one hand, by assimilation, learners incorporate new information absorbed from the environment with existing framework without changing it. On the other hand, once the learners’ original cognitive structure cannot adjust to the external stimuli, accommodation of reframing cognitive structure occurs. That is to say, cognitive structure is constructed through the processes of assimilation and accommodation, developing through the cycle of balance-unbalance-new balance. Constructivism suggests knowledge be constructed based on learners’ original cognitive structures, experiences and believes. In Piaget’s view, learning is the result of interaction which goes under the premise that there is non-equilibrium between a person’s existing knowledge and new received information.
According to the Social Constructivism, learning is an active and social process which invents ideas rather than mechanically accumulates facts. It is through rethinking old ideas that meaningful learning occurs, and it helps to reach new conclusions when the old ideas conflict with the new ones. The learners are not passive recipients of knowledge, and the teachers cannot pass on the knowledge, so teaching should be a process of facilitating students’ own construction of knowledge. Learners should learn to discover facts,construct principles and concepts for themselves, hence it is important to encourage students to do guesswork and intuitive thinking. Individuals gain meanings through interacting with others and with the environment they live in. Knowledge is, on the one hand, a product of humans and on the other hand, socially and culturally constructed. Learning is neither a process that only takes place inside our minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviors that is shaped by external forces. Learning is a social process. Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities. Learning is the result of mental construction. Students learn by fitting new information together with what they already know. People learn best when they actively construct their own understanding.
2.3 Previous Studies on Story-Based Approach
This part included two sections which presented previous studies of story-based approach. The first section reviewed previous studies of different models of story-based approach both abroad and at home. The second section reviewed studies on values of story-based approach in language instruction, which included studies on how to improve the efficiency of story-based approach, the effects of story-based approach on language teaching and learning in general, and the effects of story-based approach on specific aspects of language teaching and learning.
2.3.1 Previous Studies on Models of Story-Based Approach
Since its emergence, story-based approach has been studied enthusiastically abroad. Many models for the approach were proposed and practiced. The Story-centered Curriculum, Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS), storyline method, and the PACE model were well known and widely used.
The Story-centered Curriculum was developed by Roger Schank and his colleagues. Students work in teams in virtual apprenticeships with experts producing deliverables that get increasingly complex throughout the year. Stories in the curriculum are rich, engaging, and motivating, providing a coherent context for learning. A sequence of tasks taking place in that story that serves to exercise key knowledge and skills in a principled progression and to encourage students’ acquisition in time. Schank (2007) described the story-centered curriculum in detail. Nemoto, Takeoka, Akahashi, Shibata, and Suzuki (2013) described three years (2009-2012) of their practice in the story-centered curriculum project that were initiated in 2008, and how to revise it.
Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling is one of the popular teaching method in America, which was developed from Total Physic Response (TPR) by Blaine Ray. It uses a mixture of reading and storytelling to help students learn a foreign language in a classroom setting. The method works in three steps: in step one the new vocabulary structures to be learned are taught using a combination of translation, gestures, and personalized questions; in step two those structures are used in a spoken class story; and finally, in step three, these same structures are used in a class reading. It enables students to acquire language in a relaxed atmosphere through constructing situations related to the stories. Blanton (2015) examined the effect of Communicative Language Teaching and Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling. Beal (2011) explored storytelling in the use of Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS) with middle school and high school students. Foster (2011) studied instruction and teaching proficiency with TPRS. Susan (2013), and Hussein (2009) investigated the effects of Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling in improving students’ listening comprehension and speaking skills.
The storyline method was originated in England. The main feature that differentiates this approach from other learning and teaching strategies is that it recognizes the value of the existing knowledge of the learner. Thus, through key questioning, the pupils are encouraged to construct their own models of what is being studied before testing them with real evidence and research. The key questions are used in a sequence that generally creates a context within the framework of a story. Together, learner and teacher create a scenario through visualization; the making of collages, three-dimensional models and pictures employing a variety of art and craft techniques. These provide a visual stimulus for the skill-practice planned by the teacher. Even though the teacher is planning a sequence of activities through the designing of key questions, he or she does not know the details of the content, because these are created by the students. Effects of storyline method on students’ emotional and academic development were examined (Aysun & Kerimgil 2012, Strickland 2012, Kelleher & Horwitz 2006, Smogorzewska 2014). Melville & Pilot (2014) investigated the influences on a teacher’s uncertainty through the use of storyline methodology in science education.
As has introduced above, PACE is an acronym for a four-stage grammar teaching model assimilated into story-based approach, proposed by Adair-Hauck et al.. Groeneveld (2011) investigated the effects of the PACE model on the learning of seven grammatical terminologies in two senior high schools and found significant improvement. Toth, Wagner, and Moranski, (2012) studied some second language Spanish learners in an American senior high school, and examined how they formulated explicit grammar rules during three PACE lessons. Tian (2012) conducted a study on junior high school learners, and some other researches at the college level (Haight et al. 2007, Haight 2008, Vogel et al. 2011). These three researches employed both immediate tests as well as delayed tests to measure students’ immediate learning effects and delayed retention of grammatical structures.
Studies on story-based models in China also developed fast and fruitfully. The most prominent theoretical study is Sandwich Storytelling Approach by Ji Yuhua (1998). This approach is characterized by its choice of materials and words. It can stimulate students’ interests, enrich their imagination, and increase classroom participation. The approach adopted a bilingual method of telling the stories which are choicely selected (Ji, Xu & Cai. 2000). Chen (2004) proposed a four-step storytelling method, namely, warm up, presentation, practice, and follow-up. The proportion of Students who liked English and liked listening to English stories increased greatly under this approach. Xu (2005) replaced traditional statement sentences in stories by songs and chants, making storytelling more vivid and appealing. This method was implemented in a primary school with impressive teaching effects. Liu & Gao (2008) put forward a model based on psycho-linguistics which is composed of five steps: direct learning of vocabulary and grammar, leading in background information, presenting stories, comprehending stories, and story production. This model decreases difficulty of learning but fails to differentiate between traditional reading instructions. Yan (2009) proposed a guide-creation storytelling model which includes pondering the questions, rational instruction, application, and response and assessment. It was originally created for teaching Chinese, but employed in English instruction afterwards. Jia (2009) indicated that story-based approach could be divided into three parts: preparations before storytelling, instructions while telling the story, and activities after storytelling. It was aimed to improve timeliness in English teaching. Lei (2011) pointed out the defectiveness of storytelling and put forward story-theme teaching method which encouraged students to complete the story freely according to the situation the teacher created. Story-theme teaching method is similar to British storyline method. Zhang (2011) argued that story-based approach should focus on students’ life experiences and their cognition development. The mode she proposed makes the whole teaching procedure a story in which students develop their multi-subject abilities and enrich their emotions. Shi (2013) explored the mode of “Three-direction” Story-telling English teaching, which aimed to create suitable and interesting English teaching stories before class, to guide the students efficiently during the class, and to evaluate the students properly in order to encourage them and help them in English learning.
2.3.2 Previous Studies on Values of Story-Based Approach in Language Instruction
Much work has been done on how to improve storytelling and to make it more efficient for language teaching both abroad and at home. The most representative researcher abroad is Andrew Wright, the British educator, who pointed out that story-based approach was very excellent and put it into practice in India and made great achievements (Andrew, 1998). He wrote several inspiring books to give guidance on how to tell stories and design storytelling with various activities. Daniel (2012) provided practical instructions on skills and processes for integrating oral learning in the classroom, exploring the concept of storytelling as the social art of language and presenting a collection of tools and examples for developing skills and applying story telling techniques to address numerous curriculum goals. He also made illustrations and graphical representations of story processes. Ellis & Brewster (2002) gave a full treatment of a story-based approach, addressing both theoretical background and practical activities relating to actual stories. They highlighted the fact that a story-based approach can take the learner well beyond the improvement of English structural knowledge, to reach into cross-curricular areas including values education.
At home, various models have been proposed and practiced. Lu (2008) under the direction of the theories of “The three dimension goals”, focused on analysis of every process and content of the storytelling in the English learning of primary students. H. R. Li (2014) proposed a notion of “narrative teaching” though digging into the value of story teaching. Narrative teaching evaded the limitation of story teaching and absorbed the value of the story content. It regarded the story as the main teaching content and the source of teaching research, and magnified the storyline so that students could finish course study with enjoyment. Q. Wang (2014) proposed a “Five-Step English Storytelling” method. This method includes five steps: preparation, presentation, retelling, discussion and performance, which were applied to the teaching of six stories. The method was effective in improving students’ comprehensive competence and participation in class actives. L. Y. Wang & Jin (2008) followed the idea of story-centered curriculum and suggested to apply it to classroom teaching. Y. Lin (2009) summarized the benefits of story-based approach, and put forward ways to train student teachers to implement storytelling in their future instruction. Peng (2013) presented an instructional design of an English lesson for college students based on story-based approach, which included extensive listening, question-answer analysis, reciting, retelling, discussing, and summary writing. Fu (2006) introduced the Sandwich storytelling method and then proposed strategies that were often used in practice.
Overall effects of story-based approach on language learning were examined by a large number of researchers. Rossiter (2002) made connections between narratives and stories and applied a narrative orientation to adult teaching and learning by exploring how stories and autobiographical writing promote learning. Speaker, Taylor, & Kamen (2004) explored how consistent exposure to a variety of stories improved the specific literacy skills of vocabulary, grammar, length of utterance and sentence formation, and provided a framework for implementing the art of storytelling in individual classrooms. Norfolk, Stenson and Williams (2006) provided a research-based rationale for using activities with students to promote comprehension and stimulate upper-level thinking skills during the storytelling process. They also contributed suggestions on how to implement strategies that complement instructional units as well as satisfy national educational standards. Dogan (2007) taking a case study approach, examined the situation a group of teachers used digital storytelling in the classroom after trained in a workshop at the University of Houston. It turned out that digital storytelling is not only a powerful tool to convey desired messages around a topic or a subject area by the teachers but also a very powerful tool that has positive impacts on students and their performances. Motivation and engagement levels of the students were increased after the study. It laid a foundation for later studies to investigate the implementation of digital storytelling in classrooms. Hur & Suh (2012) examined effective ways to integrate an interactive whiteboard, podcast, and digital storytelling for language proficiency development in English language learners. Green (2013) proposed a case of digital storytelling built on an intersection of secondary language acquisition theory, language learning pedagogical understandings and instructional strategies, giving pedagogical considerations for digital storytelling with ELL students. Smeda, Dakich and Sharda (2014) did a research project aimed to create a constructivist learning environment with digital storytelling. The research investigated the pedagogical aspects of digital storytelling and the impact of digital storytelling on student learning when teachers and students use digital stories.
Xue (2013) investigated the different teaching effects between storytelling method and lecturing teaching method in a primary school. The results suggested that the storytelling method has a profound impact on students’ learning interests and academic achievement. Xu (2012) summarized several characteristics of story teaching in primary English classes. It also reflected the changes story teaching brought, such as teaching principles, teachers’ roles, interactions between teachers and students, students’ learning abilities and learning interests. M. Z. Wang (2008) analyzed the problems of English teaching of lower grades in a Primary school and probed into the causes. It proved that storytelling is an effective teaching method that has outstanding advantages. The pupils’ attitude towards English had changed and their enthusiasm for English had been provoked.
Many studies on effects of storytelling on specific language skills were carried out. Elley (1989) investigated different effects of vocabulary acquisition between stories read aloud to students’ with and without explanation of new words. Penno, Wilkinson and Moore (2002) evaluated the effect of listening to stories on children’s vocabulary growth. The findings were not sufficient to overcome the Matthew effect, as the higher ability children made greater vocabulary gains than lower ability children across all conditions. Waring and Takaki (2003) examined whether words of different frequency of occurrence rates were more likely to be learned and retained or forgotten. They found out that words can be learned incidentally but that most of the words were not learned. More frequent words were more likely to be learned and were more resistant to decay. Brown, Waring and Donkaewbua (2008) examined the rate at which English vocabulary was acquired from the 3 input modes of reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. The results showed that items occurring more frequently in the text were more likely to be learned and were more resistant to decay, which was corespondent with Waring and Takaki’s study. Wilkinson & Houston-Price (2013) explored the effectiveness of naturalistic classroom storytelling as an instrument for teaching new vocabulary to 6 to 9-year-old children. It examined whether learning was facilitated by encountering new words in single versus multiple story contexts. The findings clarify how classroom storytelling activities can be a highly effective means of promoting vocabulary development.
B. Li (2002) adopted storytelling in college English listening classes. Specific strategies on how to implement a storytelling method were provided based on the three steps of traditional listening instructions. Zhao (2006) introduced PACE model and its four steps. Suggestions on how to carry out the model to teach grammar were also supplied. Y. H. Li (2007) carried out a story-based English reading teaching in higher grades of a primary school. It employed stories to improve the students’ reading ability and reading interest, using English stories to help the students form the reading habits. Yue and Wu (2009) examined the effect of story-based English teaching on students’ self-discipline. Bai (2010) employed an empirical study on college students’ writing. The study found a correlation between students’ writing level and storytelling approach. The approach improved students’ writing quality, and their interests and attitude towards writing were also enhanced, but it was not evident for higher achievers. Tan (2013) taught grammar in the context using a story-theme method . And through the listening, reading, speaking, role-playing and making up the story, a meaningful way of using English was ensured. The students constructed grammar rules by themselves. B. L. Lin (2013) conducted a 16-week long experiment in a primary school to implement storytelling method in English teaching. It enhanced students’ interest in learning English and created a more active atmosphere in class, and it improved students’ ability of understanding, memorizing and using vocabulary. H. Li (2014) investigated the effects of the PACE model on short-term learning of English relative clauses, and the participants’ attitudes towards the PACE model and the reasons for it. It contributed to how to apply the PACE model among learners at different proficiency levels, and contributed to grammar instruction in China.
2.3.3 Comments on Previous Studies
It was noted that story-based approach plays an important role in language teaching and learning. Looking back on the development of story-based approach, it is not hard to realize that most researches both at home and abroad were targeted at primary school students. Few had done on vocational school students. Besides, the majority of the researches focused on either the effects of story-based approach on language learning or the comparison between the story-based approach and traditional approaches, but the comparison between two methods of story-based approach has not been discussed. In addition, some domestic researches studied the application of story-based approach to grammar instruction. Very few researches at home investigated the effects on vocabulary acquisition. However, they did not reveal vocabulary acquisition retention. Therefore, in order to explore the different immediate effects and delayed effects of two story-based methods on vocational school students’ vocabulary acquisition, the present study will utilize quantitative method in data collection and analysis. In the following chapter, the research design will be presented.
Chapter Three Methodology
This chapter consists of two sections. Section one presents the research questions. Section two describes the research design, including participants, choice of target words, treatments, instruments, data collection and data analysis.
3.1 Research Questions
This study aims to investigate feasibility of vocabulary teaching in vocational school with two different story-based methods, specifically, teacher’s storytelling and learner’s story-writing. Three research questions to be addressed are as follows:
1. Which method is more effective in immediate vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
2. Which method is more effective in delayed vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
3. To what extent can immediate vocabulary acquisition be retained in the delayed test in terms of two methods?
3.2 Research Design
The research design is composed of participants, choice of target words, treatments, instruments, data collection and data analysis.
3.2.1 Participants
Participants in this study consisted of 97 students.
The students were grade one Chinese pastry majors from cooking department, Yangzhou Jiangsu Business Higher Vocational School. They were convenience sample drawn from two parallel classes, Class One and Class Two. Class One was comprised of 46 girls and 3 boys, While Class Two consisted of 41 girls and 7 boys. All of them were 15 to 16 years old with 6 years’ English learning experience. The mean score of the Senior High School Entrance Examination of Class One was 57.97, and Class Two 57.38. The highest score of Class One was 100 and the lowest 20. The highest score of Class Two was 105 and the lowest 13. Their English was quite poor since the full mark of the examination was 120 and just 10 students of each class scored above 72.The two classes had no significant difference in their English level as Table 3.1 shows (Sig.=0.347>0.05). In addition, both classes were heterogeneous with their standard deviation level at 17.918 and 20.354 respectively. However, Class One was a bit more homogeneous than Class Two.
Table 3. 1Differences in senior high school entrance examination between two classes
They were selected as subjects for the following reasons. First, the researcher taught both of the classes which minimized the effect of irrelevant factors. Second, the students had similar educational background and English level. Last, they were cooperative, which guaranteed the study be conducted smoothly.
3.2.2 Choice of Target Words
Before the experiment, the author selected 28 words from Book Two which they would use the next semester. They were “admit, awesome, awful, beard, bossy, catchy, chaos, despite, escape, expectation, facial, fantastic, leaflet, likely, maintain, opportunity, otherwise, predict, reaction, regardless of, risk, shaggy, show up, stare, stylish, trendy, unbelievable, unfortunate”. The words were chosen according to the principles of frequency and need (Gairns & Redman, 2009). In order to see whether the students know these words, a PPT was made with these words adding another 30 words as distractors, so that the students would not intentionally memorize the 28 target words. Then the PPT was presented to both classes. The students were told to pay attention to the words and all of them were highly concentrated. Each word was displayed within 2 seconds to prevent students from looking them up in the dictionary. The students were asked to put their hands up if they know the word on the screen, and meanwhile the researcher took notes of the results. After this, the same was done to another parallel class. Finally, 10 words were marked totally unknown to the three classes. Therefore, the ultimate target words were “admit, awesome, despite, expectation, facial, leaflet, opportunity, predict, stare, stylish”.
3.2.3 Treatments
The researcher applied story-based approach with two different teaching methods, teacher’s storytelling and learner’s story-writing. Class One was taught with the former while Class Two the latter. Both classes had a 45-minute instruction, and then the immediate tests were carried out after the break.
3.2.3.1 Design of the Teacher’s Storytelling Class Instruction
The story (see appendix I) used in the teacher’s storytelling class was developed from a story skeleton of the book, Once Upon a Time: using stories in the language classroom (Morgan, & Rinvolucri, 2012). The story was fascinating which was likely to attract students’ interests. Besides, it was chronologically developed which was easy for students to comprehend. Some details were added into the skeleton to make it complete, and some expressions were modified to make it more accessible to the students. Moreover, all the target words were woven into the story, been distributed evenly in four paragraphs of the body of the story.
By studying the story, students in Class One were supposed to master the target words. The lesson was designed under the model of PACE (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002), presentation, attention, co-construction, and extension, which was originally put forward to teach grammar. The model was modified as presentation, attention, consolidation, and extension for the purpose of vocabulary instruction.
For the first step, presentation, the story was told twice by the researcher. The first telling introduced the main characters and plot in Chinese. Then the researcher delivered the second telling in English. The students listened to the story and watched the PPT which displayed the outline of the story and illustrated the target words with pictures. The target words were not highlighted in this section.
After telling the story, attention was called on the sentences containing target words. Altogether ten sentences were shown on the screen, inviting the students to judge whether they were true according to the story. The answers which magnified target words were also displayed on the screen below each sentence. More pictures were supplied to help the students understand the words. Once they were aware of the meaning of the target word presented, examples of collocation and sentences were displayed to foster their better acquisition.
The third step was consolidation which meant to strengthen students’ comprehension and memory of target words they acquired from the preceding sections. The researcher along with the students completed flow charts of every part of the story. All information was already provided in the flow chart, leaving parts concerned with target words to be added. The students discussed within their groups to find the answers.
The last section was extension. The students were quite familiar with the story after previous activities. However, they still could not retell the story by themselves due to their oral expression abilities. Therefore, a game of removing the pictures was played. The researcher firstly showed them four pictures which told the first part of the story. After going through it again, the researcher removed one picture at a time and the students said which one was missing and which part it represented. Gradually all the pictures were removed and the students recalled the whole part of the story. The same was done with the other three parts of the story.
3.2.3.2 Design of the Learner’s Story-Writing Class Instruction
Class Two had the lesson of learner’s story-writing. The researcher demonstrated to them how to make up a story with several words already provided at the beginning of the class. Then the ten target words were taught to them with the help of the same pictures and illustrations as those of Class One. Each word was told its meaning in either Chinese or English, depending on whether it is difficult for them to understand the English explanation. Their part of speech was introduced next. After it, some basic qualities were made clear with examples, for instance, their transitivity, whether they were countable or not. At last, the same examples of collocation and sentences were construed as those of Class One.
Before story writing, these words were gone over again to make sure that all the students had no doubt about their usage. The words as well as their meaning, parts of speech were written on the blackboard so that the students could refer to while writing stories. Rules were made clear to them that the story should be written in English, all the ten new words must be included in the story but not necessarily be sequenced as the same order they had learned. The story could be long or very short, and no limit was set on either the content or the theme of the story. They could write stories about themselves and their family and friends, as well as fairy tales. The researcher moved around the classroom to help solve their difficulties in expression. When the class finished, all the stories were collected.
3.2.4 Instruments
This study implored two instruments, namely, immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test. The immediate vocabulary test was based on Paribakht & Wesche’s (1993) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) which was translated into Chinese by the researcher. The target words were listed, and below each target word followed five word familiarity self report. A sample test regarding one word can be seen in table 3.2.
Table 3. 2A sample test regarding one word
The self report ranges from total unfamiliarity through recognition of the word, knowing the word’s meaning to the ability to make a sentence with the word. The students were asked to choose any one of the five items which could best describe their mastery of the words. But if they chose item E, they had to finish item D as well, or no marks would be given.
After one week, the delayed vocabulary test was delivered to check their retention of the meaning and usage of the target words. The delayed vocabulary test was the same as the immediate test except word order.
3.2.5 Data Collection
Data collection involved two parts, immediate test data collection and delayed test data collection which was shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3. 3Description of data collection in immediate and delayed tests
On December 8, 2015, the researcher carried out the teacher’s storytelling lesson and immediate test in Class One. They had two English classes in succession in the afternoon. During the first class, the researcher conducted storytelling as has described above. After the break, they had the immediate test. The students were not informed of the test before the second class began. They were told that the test would be scored as a part of their final grade and that they must do it independently and honestly. Then the test papers were handed out. The researcher made a detailed illustration on how to complete the test paper. In the whole process, the researcher constantly reminded them not to discuss with each other or consult the dictionary or their notes. Thirty minutes later, all the 49 test papers were collected. On December 11, 2015, Class Two had the learner’s story-writing lesson and immediate test. They had two English lessons in succession in the morning. They experienced the same procedures as Class One did except the teaching content of the first class. Due to two students were absent, the actual number of test papers collected was 46.
One week later, the two classes took the delayed test respectively, Class One on December 15 and Class Two on December 18 to measure their retention of the target words. One student in Class One was absent in the delayed test so altogether 48 test papers were collected in Class One and 48 in Class Two. Altogether three students were absent in either the immediate test or the delayed test. Therefore, total valid test papers in the two tests were 188.
3.2.6 Data Analysis
Data analysis involved three parts, scoring, independent-samples t-test, and calculating the retention rates.
3.2.6.1 Scoring
The researcher scored the immediate vocabulary test and the delayed vocabulary test with the scoring method different from that of Paribakht & Wesche’s as shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3. 4Scoring method of the vocabulary tests
As the table revealed, category A and B were taken at face value. If the students chose A, they would get 1 point, and similarly, B for 2 points. A score of 2 would be credited under other 3 occasions as the arrows in the table indicate. First, the Chinese meaning assumed was wrong in category C. Second, the Chinese meaning given for sure in category D was wrong. Third, the word used in the sentence was not semantically or grammatically correctly in category E, in the meanwhile, the Chinese meaning given in category D was wrong. A score of 3 would be given if the students chose item C and assumed a correct Chinese meaning. A score of 4 would be awarded if a Chinese meaning was correctly given in category D, or the students made sentences in category E but with wrong uses of the word semantically or grammatically, meanwhile, they did category D correctly. A score of 5 would be given only when the correct Chinese meaning was given in category D and the word was used both semantically and grammatically appropriately in category E. Therefore, the full mark for the test papers was 50.
While scoring the test papers, some mistakes were taken as correct answers. For example, the students wrote wrong Chinese characters because of a slip of pen, but the researcher could get the correct meaning easily, such as, “成认” for “承认”. It was acceptable if the students provided synonyms of the given Chinese meaning. For instance, the given Chinese meaning of despite was “尽管”, but if the students wrote “虽然” which had the similar meaning with “尽管”, they would get the mark. With regard to the sentences, semantically and grammatically correct referred to the word usage rather than the whole sentences. That is to say, if the target word was used semantically and grammatically correctly, but there were other errors within the sentence, the students could still get 5 point. Because the main aim of the vocabulary tests was to evaluate their mastery of the target words.
3.2.6.2 Independent -Samples T-Test
The data in this study was processed with SPSS 16.0 for windows. Independent-samples T-test was used to see whether there were statistically significant differences between Class One and Class Two in both immediate and delayed tests.
3.2.6.3 Calculation of Retention Rates
Retention rate of students’ vocabulary acquisition was calculated by dividing the mean score of the delayed test by that of the immediate test of each class. Retention rates of the two classes were compared to see the effects of story-based approach on students’ retention of acquired vocabulary.
This chapter consists of two sections. Section one presents the research questions. Section two describes the research design, including participants, choice of target words, treatments, instruments, data collection and data analysis.
3.1 Research Questions
This study aims to investigate feasibility of vocabulary teaching in vocational school with two different story-based methods, specifically, teacher’s storytelling and learner’s story-writing. Three research questions to be addressed are as follows:
1. Which method is more effective in immediate vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
2. Which method is more effective in delayed vocabulary acquisition, the teacher’s storytelling or learner’s story-writing?
3. To what extent can immediate vocabulary acquisition be retained in the delayed test in terms of two methods?
3.2 Research Design
The research design is composed of participants, choice of target words, treatments, instruments, data collection and data analysis.
3.2.1 Participants
Participants in this study consisted of 97 students.
The students were grade one Chinese pastry majors from cooking department, Yangzhou Jiangsu Business Higher Vocational School. They were convenience sample drawn from two parallel classes, Class One and Class Two. Class One was comprised of 46 girls and 3 boys, While Class Two consisted of 41 girls and 7 boys. All of them were 15 to 16 years old with 6 years’ English learning experience. The mean score of the Senior High School Entrance Examination of Class One was 57.97, and Class Two 57.38. The highest score of Class One was 100 and the lowest 20. The highest score of Class Two was 105 and the lowest 13. Their English was quite poor since the full mark of the examination was 120 and just 10 students of each class scored above 72.The two classes had no significant difference in their English level as Table 3.1 shows (Sig.=0.347>0.05). In addition, both classes were heterogeneous with their standard deviation level at 17.918 and 20.354 respectively. However, Class One was a bit more homogeneous than Class Two.
Table 3. 1Differences in senior high school entrance examination between two classes
| Class | Number | Mean | Std. Deviation | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class One | 49 | 57.96 | 17.91 | .893 | .347 |
| Class Two | 48 | 57.39 | 20.35 |
They were selected as subjects for the following reasons. First, the researcher taught both of the classes which minimized the effect of irrelevant factors. Second, the students had similar educational background and English level. Last, they were cooperative, which guaranteed the study be conducted smoothly.
3.2.2 Choice of Target Words
Before the experiment, the author selected 28 words from Book Two which they would use the next semester. They were “admit, awesome, awful, beard, bossy, catchy, chaos, despite, escape, expectation, facial, fantastic, leaflet, likely, maintain, opportunity, otherwise, predict, reaction, regardless of, risk, shaggy, show up, stare, stylish, trendy, unbelievable, unfortunate”. The words were chosen according to the principles of frequency and need (Gairns & Redman, 2009). In order to see whether the students know these words, a PPT was made with these words adding another 30 words as distractors, so that the students would not intentionally memorize the 28 target words. Then the PPT was presented to both classes. The students were told to pay attention to the words and all of them were highly concentrated. Each word was displayed within 2 seconds to prevent students from looking them up in the dictionary. The students were asked to put their hands up if they know the word on the screen, and meanwhile the researcher took notes of the results. After this, the same was done to another parallel class. Finally, 10 words were marked totally unknown to the three classes. Therefore, the ultimate target words were “admit, awesome, despite, expectation, facial, leaflet, opportunity, predict, stare, stylish”.
3.2.3 Treatments
The researcher applied story-based approach with two different teaching methods, teacher’s storytelling and learner’s story-writing. Class One was taught with the former while Class Two the latter. Both classes had a 45-minute instruction, and then the immediate tests were carried out after the break.
3.2.3.1 Design of the Teacher’s Storytelling Class Instruction
The story (see appendix I) used in the teacher’s storytelling class was developed from a story skeleton of the book, Once Upon a Time: using stories in the language classroom (Morgan, & Rinvolucri, 2012). The story was fascinating which was likely to attract students’ interests. Besides, it was chronologically developed which was easy for students to comprehend. Some details were added into the skeleton to make it complete, and some expressions were modified to make it more accessible to the students. Moreover, all the target words were woven into the story, been distributed evenly in four paragraphs of the body of the story.
By studying the story, students in Class One were supposed to master the target words. The lesson was designed under the model of PACE (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002), presentation, attention, co-construction, and extension, which was originally put forward to teach grammar. The model was modified as presentation, attention, consolidation, and extension for the purpose of vocabulary instruction.
For the first step, presentation, the story was told twice by the researcher. The first telling introduced the main characters and plot in Chinese. Then the researcher delivered the second telling in English. The students listened to the story and watched the PPT which displayed the outline of the story and illustrated the target words with pictures. The target words were not highlighted in this section.
After telling the story, attention was called on the sentences containing target words. Altogether ten sentences were shown on the screen, inviting the students to judge whether they were true according to the story. The answers which magnified target words were also displayed on the screen below each sentence. More pictures were supplied to help the students understand the words. Once they were aware of the meaning of the target word presented, examples of collocation and sentences were displayed to foster their better acquisition.
The third step was consolidation which meant to strengthen students’ comprehension and memory of target words they acquired from the preceding sections. The researcher along with the students completed flow charts of every part of the story. All information was already provided in the flow chart, leaving parts concerned with target words to be added. The students discussed within their groups to find the answers.
The last section was extension. The students were quite familiar with the story after previous activities. However, they still could not retell the story by themselves due to their oral expression abilities. Therefore, a game of removing the pictures was played. The researcher firstly showed them four pictures which told the first part of the story. After going through it again, the researcher removed one picture at a time and the students said which one was missing and which part it represented. Gradually all the pictures were removed and the students recalled the whole part of the story. The same was done with the other three parts of the story.
3.2.3.2 Design of the Learner’s Story-Writing Class Instruction
Class Two had the lesson of learner’s story-writing. The researcher demonstrated to them how to make up a story with several words already provided at the beginning of the class. Then the ten target words were taught to them with the help of the same pictures and illustrations as those of Class One. Each word was told its meaning in either Chinese or English, depending on whether it is difficult for them to understand the English explanation. Their part of speech was introduced next. After it, some basic qualities were made clear with examples, for instance, their transitivity, whether they were countable or not. At last, the same examples of collocation and sentences were construed as those of Class One.
Before story writing, these words were gone over again to make sure that all the students had no doubt about their usage. The words as well as their meaning, parts of speech were written on the blackboard so that the students could refer to while writing stories. Rules were made clear to them that the story should be written in English, all the ten new words must be included in the story but not necessarily be sequenced as the same order they had learned. The story could be long or very short, and no limit was set on either the content or the theme of the story. They could write stories about themselves and their family and friends, as well as fairy tales. The researcher moved around the classroom to help solve their difficulties in expression. When the class finished, all the stories were collected.
3.2.4 Instruments
This study implored two instruments, namely, immediate vocabulary test and delayed vocabulary test. The immediate vocabulary test was based on Paribakht & Wesche’s (1993) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) which was translated into Chinese by the researcher. The target words were listed, and below each target word followed five word familiarity self report. A sample test regarding one word can be seen in table 3.2.
Table 3. 2A sample test regarding one word
B. 我见过这个单词，但是不知道是什么意思 （ ） C. 我见过这个单词，我猜它的意思是____________ D. 我认识这个单词，我能肯定它的意思是_____________ E. 我能用这个单词造句_____________________________(做此项请同时完成D) |
After one week, the delayed vocabulary test was delivered to check their retention of the meaning and usage of the target words. The delayed vocabulary test was the same as the immediate test except word order.
3.2.5 Data Collection
Data collection involved two parts, immediate test data collection and delayed test data collection which was shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3. 3Description of data collection in immediate and delayed tests
| test | class | number | time | place |
| Immediate test | One | 49 | 2015.12.8 | A113 |
| Two | 46 | 2015.12.11 | A111 | |
| Delayed test | One | 48 | 2015.12.15 | A113 |
| Two | 48 | 2015.12.18 | A111 |
One week later, the two classes took the delayed test respectively, Class One on December 15 and Class Two on December 18 to measure their retention of the target words. One student in Class One was absent in the delayed test so altogether 48 test papers were collected in Class One and 48 in Class Two. Altogether three students were absent in either the immediate test or the delayed test. Therefore, total valid test papers in the two tests were 188.
3.2.6 Data Analysis
Data analysis involved three parts, scoring, independent-samples t-test, and calculating the retention rates.
3.2.6.1 Scoring
The researcher scored the immediate vocabulary test and the delayed vocabulary test with the scoring method different from that of Paribakht & Wesche’s as shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3. 4Scoring method of the vocabulary tests
| Self-report categories | scores | Meaning of scores |
 A   B  C D E |
1 | The word is not familiar at all. |
| 2 | The word is familiar but its meaning is not known. | |
| 3 | A correct Chinese meaning is assumed. | |
| 4 | A correct Chinese meaning is given for sure. | |
| 5 | The word is used both semantically and grammatically correctly in a sentence. |
While scoring the test papers, some mistakes were taken as correct answers. For example, the students wrote wrong Chinese characters because of a slip of pen, but the researcher could get the correct meaning easily, such as, “成认” for “承认”. It was acceptable if the students provided synonyms of the given Chinese meaning. For instance, the given Chinese meaning of despite was “尽管”, but if the students wrote “虽然” which had the similar meaning with “尽管”, they would get the mark. With regard to the sentences, semantically and grammatically correct referred to the word usage rather than the whole sentences. That is to say, if the target word was used semantically and grammatically correctly, but there were other errors within the sentence, the students could still get 5 point. Because the main aim of the vocabulary tests was to evaluate their mastery of the target words.
3.2.6.2 Independent -Samples T-Test
The data in this study was processed with SPSS 16.0 for windows. Independent-samples T-test was used to see whether there were statistically significant differences between Class One and Class Two in both immediate and delayed tests.
3.2.6.3 Calculation of Retention Rates
Retention rate of students’ vocabulary acquisition was calculated by dividing the mean score of the delayed test by that of the immediate test of each class. Retention rates of the two classes were compared to see the effects of story-based approach on students’ retention of acquired vocabulary.
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
This chapter involves two parts. The first part analyzes and reports the results of the study in the order of the research questions presented in Chapter Three, and the second part tries to give a detailed explanation on the reasons behind these results.
4.1 Results of the Experiment
4.1.1 Effects of Story-Based Approach on Immediate Vocabulary Acquisition
Different effects of teacher’s storytelling method and learner’s story-writing method have on students’ immediate vocabulary acquisition are shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4. 1Differences in immediate vocabulary acquisition between two classes
| Class | Number | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean Difference | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class One | 48 | 33.29 | 8.57 | -5.41 | -3.006 | .003 |
| Class Two | 46 | 38.70 | 8.85 |
As revealed in Table 4.1, the mean score of the teacher’s storytelling class is 33.29, while the learner’s story-writing class has the mean score of 38.70. Their mean difference is 5.404 with their SD 8.572 and 8.857 respectively. It indicates that the two methods have some effects of their immediate vocabulary acquisition to a certain extent, and the learner’s story-writing class scored higher than the teacher’s storytelling class. But the scores of both classes are widely spread. Moreover, there is a significant difference between the two classes with a significant level at 0.03 < 0.05 which shows that learner’s story-writing method is more effective than teacher’s storytelling in students’ immediate vocabulary acquisition.
4.1.2 Effects of Story-Based Approach on Delayed Vocabulary Acquisition
The results of students’ delayed vocabulary acquisition of the two methods are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4. 2Differences in delayed vocabulary acquisition between two classes
| Class | Number | Mean | Std. Deviation | Mean Difference | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class One | 48 | 30.02 | 8.89 | -6.35 | -3.311 | .001 |
| Class Two | 46 | 36.37 | 9.68 |
.............
.............
.............