5
After each session of the storytelling, the Japanese teacher or a student read out the correct translations of the new words. The students were asked to mark all the words they had identified correctly and then report the number of words they knew before and the number of words they correctly understood after listening to the story. At the end of each session all students received a vocabulary list with the German-Japanese translations and a copy of the story. This answer check with corrective feedback and explanation took about 15 minutes.
After the Christmas vacation, a delayed post-test was given. The students were asked to translate all target words that were included in the three story telling sessions. As already mentioned, the students were not told that the delayed test would take place. After the students finished taking the test, one student read out the correct translation and the students corrected their results. The students counted how many words they remembered correctly and then the teacher collected their test papers. In this study we attempted to determine the efficiency of vocabulary development, that is, the number of words gained per minute.
Material
The plot of the story was taken from an easy reader in German (Ebbe und Flut). The story was about a detective who discovered that the sweetheart of his youth was involved in criminal dealings. The storyteller attempted to use grammatical structures that were known by the students.
Results
Table 2 presents the means for all three sessions combined. On the immediate posttest, students learned 35% of the words they did not know on the pre-test (total number of words = 103; total unknown = 103 – 19.6 = 83.4; post-test = 49.1. Total learned = 49.1 – 19.6 = 29.5. 29.5/83.4 = 35%). On the delayed post-test, they scored a mean of 33.3, indicating 13.7 words learned (33.3 – 19.6), a 16% gain (13.7/83.4). The time spent for the whole lesson was 30 minutes of story-hearing and 15 minutes of corrective feedback. Thus, the rate of acquisition/learning was .10 (13.7/135=0.10), or one-tenth of a word per minute.
Table 2. Mean and S.D. of Pre-, Post-, and Delayed post-test
| Pretest Mean (S.D.) | Posttest Mean (S.D.) | Gain | Delayed Mean (S.D.) (7 wks later) | Final gain | Time Spent | Rate: Words/min |
| 19.６ (13.1) | 49.1 (15.5) | 29.5 (35%) | 33.3 (21.7) | 13.7 (16%) | 135 min. | 0.10 |
Total number of words on the tests = 103
Unknown words = 103 – 19.6 = 83.4
Posttest = 49.1 correct, but they knew 19.6. (49.1-19.6=29.5) 29.5/83.4 = 35%
Delayed posttest = 33.3 but they knew 19.6. (33.3-19.6=13.7) 13.7/83.4 = 16%
The difference between pre and delayed post-test scores was highly significant (t-test for correlated samples, t = 3.44, df = 6, p < .01).
5