Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 1

Korean Student Korean Student Compensation StrategiesCompensation Strategies

Douglas Paul MargolisDouglas Paul Margolis

University of Hawai’iUniversity of Hawai’i

Department of Second Language StudiesDepartment of Second Language Studies

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 2

Warm upWarm up

““Nick, what is the past participle of the verb to ring?”Nick, what is the past participle of the verb to ring?”

““What do you think it is, Sir?”What do you think it is, Sir?”

““I don’t think. I KNOW!”I don’t think. I KNOW!”

““I don’t think I know either, Sir!”I don’t think I know either, Sir!”Nick:Nick:

Nick:Nick:

Teacher:Teacher:

Teacher:Teacher:

Ugh!

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 3

TBLT & CSTBLT & CS

Skehan, 1998Skehan, 1998• Immersion studiesImmersion studies

• Privilege of fluency over accuracyPrivilege of fluency over accuracy

• Compensation Strategies should be avoided in TBLTCompensation Strategies should be avoided in TBLT

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 4

Korean Student CharacteristicsKorean Student Characteristics

• Rote memorization study

• Grammar Translation / synthetic syllabus

• Study for tests, not communication

• Difficulty moving from accuracy to fluency

• Error avoidance tendencies

• Little experience with TBLT

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 5

Compensation Strategies Compensation Strategies DefinitionDefinition

Compensation strategiesCompensation strategies (Oxford, 1990)(Oxford, 1990)

active, active,

conscious techniques conscious techniques

students can adopt and teachers can teach, students can adopt and teachers can teach,

to compensate for gaps in linguistic and lexical to compensate for gaps in linguistic and lexical knowledge in the target language.knowledge in the target language.

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 6

Research DesignResearch Design

1.1. Survey (Based on Oxford’s SILL)Survey (Based on Oxford’s SILL)2.2. 37 comp. strats / 5 self assess ability items (see handout)37 comp. strats / 5 self assess ability items (see handout)3.3. 10 Universities (100 Ss each)10 Universities (100 Ss each)4.4. Identify most/least used by comparing meansIdentify most/least used by comparing means

Research Questions1. To which compensation strategies do Korean EFL

university students most/least resort?

2. Does student English proficiency level affect compensation strategy utilization?

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 7

Study ParticipantsStudy Participants

Korean EFL university students

Age range: 17-63 (majority 21-24)

Gender: Female 60%

Male 40%

School Locations: Seoul 42%

Urban (not Seoul) 28%

Rural 30%

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 8

Results: Most Utilized StrategiesResults: Most Utilized StrategiesStrategy Mean SD

1st Guess meaning from context 3.77 .83

2nd Find clues to meaning in other parts 3.63 .85

3rd Replace unknown word with synonym or similar word

3.52 .88

4th Guess meaning from gestures or expressions 3.49 .93

5th Avoid difficult grammar 3.46 1.03

6th Circumlocute 3.44 .93

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 9

Results: Least Utilized StrategiesResults: Least Utilized StrategiesStrategy Mean SD

1st Brainstorm words in a topic before writing 2.10 .87

2nd Use approximations like /p/ for /f/ 2.25 1.10

3rd Write heard words to help guess meaning 2.35 1.04

4th Coin words when you can’t remember one 2.55 1.08

5th Ask speaker to repeat w/ diff words or expression

2.60 .98

6th Use an antonym to ask for an unknown word 2.64 1.00

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 10

Factor AnalysisFactor Analysis

Three types of strategies hypothesized:1) Rising (Increase use as ability increases)2) Falling (Decrease use as ability increases)3) Horizontal (Relatively no change related to ability)

Principal component analysis Varimax rotation, 3 components Cumulative 31.90% of the variance.Saved as regression factor scores

Scree Plot

Component Number

37

35

33

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15

13

11

9

7

5

3

1

Eige

nval

ue

8

6

4

2

0

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 11

Factor Analysis -2-Factor Analysis -2-

Component 1(Rising, negotiation)

Component 2(Rising, achievement,

guessing)

Component 3(Falling, reduction, bre

akdown)

32, 21, 14, 13, 31, 33, 19, 11, 23, 12, 26, 18, 20

8, 9, 6, 16, 28, 15, 34, 10, 24

38, 37, 40, 29, 28, 25, 30, 27

Interaction oriented

Interlocutor assistance

Reception oriented Speaking oriented

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 12

ResultsResults

• Three types of strategies seem distinguished.

• Comparisons of factor scores by ability levels reveals the rising and falling patterns.

• There is a significant difference in strategy use at differing ability levels.

• Korean EFL learners in this study most used a guessing from context strategy and least used brainstorming strategies in writing.

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 13

LimitationsLimitations

• Self reports (not clear evidence of behavior)

• Causal connection remains unclear

• The difference in range between most used and least used strategy mean = 1.67

• Restricted range of the 5 pt. Likert Scale

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 14

Implications for TBLTImplications for TBLT

1.1. Teach students rising strategiesTeach students rising strategies

2.2. Encourage students to avoid falling strategiesEncourage students to avoid falling strategies

3.3. In Korea, TBLT may require compensation strategy In Korea, TBLT may require compensation strategy training to help students overcome fears of error.training to help students overcome fears of error.

4.4. Clarification requests and confirmation checks may be Clarification requests and confirmation checks may be more appropriate feedback types in Korean TBLT context.more appropriate feedback types in Korean TBLT context.

5.5. As student communication ability increases, the types of As student communication ability increases, the types of strategies they use appear to change whether or not strategies they use appear to change whether or not strategy training is implemented.strategy training is implemented.

Margolis TBLT 2005 Slide 15

Douglas MargolisDepartment of Second Language StudiesUniversity of Hawai’imargolis@hawaii.edu1-808-956-2792