THE EFFECT OF EXPLICT INSTRUCTION ON LEXICAL INFERENCING STRATEGIES OF KANJI IN READING

THE EFFECT OF EXPLICT INSTRUCTION ON LEXICAL INFERENCING STRATEGIES OF KANJI IN READING 伊藤潤子 Junko Ito, Columbia University (Graduate Student) 1.1. Statement of the problem As students progress to the intermediate level, the number of unknown kanji they encounter in authentic reading texts increases rapidly, and inferring the meaning of unknown kanji becomes critical. Some students seem to deal with novel kanji words well, while others have great difficulty inferring the meaning of unknown kanji, which makes reading more difficult. As students reach more advanced levels, success in kanji inferencing seems to become more important for reading comprehension. In order to infer the meaning of unknown kanji, students should be able to utilize both contextual and morphological cues. Previous studies suggest that explicit lexical inferencing strategy instruction might be beneficial for students who struggle with kanji. However, kanji inferencing strategies are not often taught explicitly in class. Some teachers do not even teach kanji at all due to time constraints, relying on students selfstudy at home. Not surprisingly, the lack of kanji learning strategy instruction at the beginning level causes students great difficulty handling authentic reading texts at the intermediate or pre-advanced level. 1.2. The goals of the present study Strategies for teaching how to infer the meaning of unknown kanji in second language (L2) reading cannot be ignored for students development of reading proficiency. The goal of this study is to examine if explicit instruction in kanji inferencing strategies would have a positive impact on the improvement of students kanji learning and reading comprehension. To research this question, I gave a group of the second-year Japanese language students 50-minute weekly training sessions over six weeks in the strategies to infer the meaning of unknown kanji and examined how those instructions helped students to improve their proficiency on reading comprehension and the development of lexical inferencing skills for kanji. 2. Background 2.1. Lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 reading 2.1.1. The role of lexical inferencing on L1 reading proficiency Lexical inferencing means guessing the meanings of unfamiliar words in context using available linguistic and other cues (Bengelei & Paribakht, 2004; Morrison, 1996). It is considered to be a very important lexical processing strategy for L1-speaking children. Nagy and Anderson (1984) estimate that the number of words that native Englishspeaking children encounter during their school years is about 88,500. Since the number of words that children learn through school instruction is much less than 88,500, children obviously learn tens of thousands of words on their own. They acquire their vocabulary on their own through motivation and by inferring word meanings from morphology and context. Lexical inferencing becomes an essential skill for good L1 readers (Morrison, 1996). According to Shu and Anderson (1997), native Chinese-speaking children start 34

learning Chinese characters from the first grade. Chinese characters have complex forms, which are composed of radicals. By the third grade, children start developing the ability to infer unknown characters utilizing the semantic information in radicals. They learn approximately 3,000 Chinese characters by the sixth grade. Shu and Anderson maintain that the use of morphological knowledge differentiates good readers from poor readers (Shu and Anderson, 1997). 2.1.2. The role of lexical inferencing on L2 reading proficiency Lexical inferencing is also an important strategy for L2 readers. Morrison (1996) investigated the inferencing procedures that 20 learners of French as a second language used in a university context. Participants read an authentic French text on pedestrian behaviors. Her analysis of pairs think-aloud protocols revealed that high proficiency learners were more successful at lexical inferencing and used more knowledge sources and more combined sources than low proficiency learners. In her study, both high proficiency and low proficiency learners used contextual cues frequently, but high proficiency learners used the intralingual sources much more frequently than low proficiency learners. Morrison suggests that the low proficiency learners need to increase lexical knowledge through word-analysis and develop the ability to combine lexical knowledge and contextual knowledge. In another study, Bengeleil and Paribakht (2004) examined the use of inferencing strategies in reading comprehension by 17 EFL Arabic-speaking medical students. In their introspective study, learners read an authentic English text on environmental refugees. Their results somewhat contradicted Morrison s (1996). Their analysis revealed that the low proficiency participants used more knowledge sources and more combined sources than high proficiency learners, although the former were less successful at lexical inferencing than the latter. Bengeil and Paribakht explain that low proficiency participants needed multiple sources for lexical inferencing because of their low level of text comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Using multiple sources is usually considered to be better than a single source. However, their study indicates that using different types of knowledge sources is not enough for successful lexical inferencing and that low proficiency learners need to develop the ability to eliminate irrelevant information and put relevant information together through word-analysis and contextual reasoning. 2.1.3. Cross-linguistic variations in lexical processing There are also cross-linguistic variations in lexical processing, which result from different orthography (Koda, 2005). According to Koda (2005), lexical processing is different between English, an alphabetical language, and Chinese, a logographic language. English orthography is morphophonemic, while each Chinese character represents a morpheme. In English, although spellings are often irregular, a letter represents a phoneme and letter clusters represent a morpheme. For example, the English word cats is composed of two morphemes, cat and a plural suffix s. The word cats is also composed of three phonemes: /k//æ/ /ts/. On the other hand, in Chinese, each character is formed of radicals. Phonological information and semantic information are carried by a separate radical within a character. In order to process the information, readers must know the locations of a semantic radical 35

and a phonetic radical within a character. For example, the Chinese character 銅 /tong/ (copper) consists of a semantic radical 金 (gold) and a phonetic radical 同 /tong/. The meaning of the whole character is usually semantically related to a semantic radical (Koda, 2005). Koda maintains that intraword awareness helps students with an alphabetical background to eliminate possibilities generated by contextual reasoning and infer the meaning of logographic words such as kanji correctly. 2.1.4. The influence of L1 lexical processing on L2 reading processing Mori s study (1998) indicates that L1 lexical processing influences L2 lexical processing strategies. Phonological codes are used to store information in short-term memory (Mori, 1998). However, due to different orthography, alphabetic languages are more phonologically transparent than logographic languages. Mori s hypothesis was that students with logographic L1 backgrounds should be more tolerant of phonologically vague representations than students with alphabetic L1 backgrounds. Mori (1998) examined the processing of phonologically inaccessible kanji characters with 40 undergraduate students learning Japanese in a university context. Students were divided into two groups: a group of 20 American English-speaking students and a group of 20 students with logographic L1 backgrounds (7 Chinese and 13 Korean students). In the study, students ability to process phonologically inaccessible kanji characters was tested through short-term memory tasks. The results supported her hypothesis. English-speaking students had difficulty memorizing phonologically inaccessible kanji characters, while the phonological inaccessibility didn t affect the performances of students with logographic L1 backgrounds. Mori concludes that students with a logographic L1 background have more flexible strategies for phonological decoding for a new word than students with an alphabetic L1 background. Similarly, more reliance on visual information among Chinese participants and more reliance on phonological information among English participants was observed in Chikamatsu s study (1996) with Japanese syllabic kana words. L1 lexical processing transfers to L2 reading processing, which explains why students with logographic L1 backgrounds have an advantage in learning kanji characters and why kanji is difficult for students with alphabetic L1 backgrounds to learn. 2.2. Lexical inferencing of kanji as L2 teaching / learning strategy 2.2.1. Strategies for lexical inferencing of unknown kanji in L2 reading Students can use both morphological cues and contextual cues for lexical inferencing of kanji. Mori & Nagy (1999) investigated lexical inferencing strategies of unknown kanji with 59 American students who had enrolled in intermediate or preadvanced Japanese courses in a university context. In order to see strategies, they constructed multiple-choice kanji compound tests with four types of answers: (1) Integrated answers (both kanji cues and contextual cues) (2) Kanji distracters (only kanji cues were used) (3) Context distracters (only contextual cues were used) and (4) Anomalous answers (neither kanji cues nor contextual cues were used). The results showed that students were most likely to get correct answers when both kanji cues and contextual cues were available. There was no correlation between the use of kanji cues and the use of contextual cues, which indicated that guessing from context is a different 36

strategy from morphological analysis. Also, they found a correlation between proficiency and contextual cues. Low proficiency students didn t use contextual cues. Mori (2002, 2003) repeated the study with 74 English-speaking college students who had enrolled in a two-month intensive summer Japanese program in Japan. The results showed that about half of the students tended to use a single source while the other half integrated multiple sources. Mori concludes that multiple sources are more effective since context and morphology provide different information. Context provides syntactic information and word morphology provides semantic information (Mori, 2003). Mori also posits that less successful learners cannot use multiple sources as effectively as successful learners do. Kondo-Brown (2006) investigated the relationship between kanji inferencing and reading proficiency levels with students in advanced Japanese classes. The results show that students with higher reading proficiency levels could use contextual cues better than students with lower reading proficiency levels and that students with higher reading proficiency levels were able to infer the correct meaning of unknown kanji more often than students with lower reading proficiency levels. By her study (2006), Kondo-Brown points out that students need adequate kanji knowledge to infer correctly since students often use morphological analysis before contextual analysis. 2.2.2. The effect of students beliefs on their strategies for learning kanji Mori (1999) also examined the relationship between language learners beliefs about language learning and learning strategies with 47 students learning Japanese in a university context. Results indicate small but statistically significant correlations between students beliefs and their learning strategies. For example, students beliefs in the simplicity of knowledge correlated with a tendency to overrely on a single source of information, and students beliefs in avoidance of ambiguity correlated with overreliance on kanji cues. Most recently, Mori and Shimizu (2007) conducted a survey of 311 Japanese language students studying at nine universities in the U.S. and found a correlation between students attitudes toward kanji and their perceptions of kanji learning strategies. Among the six identified kanji learning strategies, students considered rote memorization most effective and metacognitive strategies least effective. Students who appreciated the cultural value of kanji and had positive emotions believed in the effectiveness of varied strategies, while students who believed kanji is difficult and kanji learning requires special ability relied on rote memorization. In a subsequent study, Mori, Sato, and Shimizu (2007) also found that there is a correlation between higher proficiency with kanji and belief in the effectiveness of metacognitive strategies. 2.2.3. The effect of teachers beliefs on their strategies for teaching kanji Interestingly, teachers attitudes toward kanji also reflected their strategies for teaching kanji. Based on surveys of 251 Japanese language educators at universities in the U.S., Shimizu and Green (2002) discovered that most teachers teach kanji through rote memorization. They also investigated two other instructional techniques, memory strategies and context strategies. Memory strategies use component analysis to connect new kanji to previously learned characters. Context strategies require students to focus on either the internal and external features of kanji or to guess the meaning of new kanji 37

from the surrounding words in authentic materials. Shimizu and Green concluded that the teachers most likely to use these strategies are those who value the traditional culture of kanji, enjoy teaching kanji, and believe in the importance of knowing kanji. Similarly, they found a significant correlation between teachers affective orientation and the difficulty of kanji. Their study suggested that the teachers who believe that kanji is difficult to learn also think students don t like learning kanji, so the teachers don t enjoy teaching kanji and students find that learning kanji is not fun. Thus, Shimizu and Green surmised that teachers teaching strategies also influence students perceptions about kanji. 2.2.4. Explicit instruction on lexical inferencing strategies for learning kanji The importance of explicit instruction is mentioned in a variety of research. Based on findings from previous studies focused on L2 instruction conducted between 1990 and 1998, Norris and Ortega (2000) concluded that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction with some cautions about methodological problems with treatments and measurements. In the context of teaching Japanese, Moroishi (1999) examined the effectiveness of explicit instruction on grammatical explanations of conjecture auxiliaries. In her study, 42 Japanese language students were assigned randomly into three groups - a group with explicit instruction, a group with implicit instruction, and a control group. The explicit group and the implicit group engaged in the same activities but only the explicit group received grammatical explanations. The results supported the effectiveness of explicit instruction because the group with explicit instruction performed better than the group with implicit instruction. 2.3. Research questions The previous studies on lexical inferencing for kanji suggest that it is important to teach students strategies in lexical inferencing strategies for kanji (Mori & Nahy,1999; Mori,1999, 2002, 2003). However, the effectiveness of explicit strategy instruction on kanji learning and reading comprehension has not been widely investigated. Therefore, this study will examine the effectiveness of explicit instruction on inferencing strategies of kanji. The present study examined the following three research questions: (1) Does increasing morphological knowledge of kanji raise students awareness of radicals and promote the use of morphological cues in interpretation of novel kanji?; (2) Does learning how to use contextual cues appropriately promote students use of context-based strategies?; and (3) Does kanji learning strategy instruction improve reading comprehension? 3. Method 3.1. Participants Participants in this study were 35 English-speaking college students who enrolled in the second-year Japanese course at a western state university in the U.S. in the fall semester of 2007. At the beginning of the semester, 19 students volunteered for the treatment group, which received weekly extra kanji instruction sessions outside of class. However, one student dropped out of the class during the semester and two students discontinued their participation during the 6-week treatment period due to their 38

scheduling conflicts or personal reasons. Therefore, 16 students remained in the treatment group. For the control group, the rest of the class (16 students) agreed to participate in the research. However, in this group, two students withdrew from class during the semester and three students could not take both the pre-tests and the post-tests because of prolonged illness and absences. As a result, 11 students remained in the control group. Demographic information for the two groups is provided in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. 3.2. Instruments This study used the pre-test-and-post-test design. Both the control group and the treatment group took multiple-choice kanji compound tests and reading comprehension tests. The multiple-choice kanji compound tests were given to determine students lexical inferencing skills of kanji. The reading comprehension tests were given to determine students reading proficiency. Multiple-choice kanji compound tests used in this study were modeled on the kanji tests used in Nagy and Mori s study (1999). Kanji used in the multiple-choice kanji pre-test were kanji which students already had studied in their first-year Japanese courses. Similarly, kanji used in the multiple-choice kanji post-test were kanji which students had studied in class during the fall semester of 2007. Each kanji compound test consisted of 20 questions. Thus, the scores ranged from 0 to 20. In addition to kanji tests, two 30-item reading tests were given to both the treatment and control groups before the study and after the study, to see students performance on reading. Questions taken from The Japanese Language Proficiency Test Level 3 and 4 Questions and Correct Answers (Bonjinsha, 2002, 2005, 2007) were used for this study. The reading test scores ranged from 0 to 30. Prior to the test administration, the tests used in this study were piloted with three students who had two years of study. One of those students had earned A s, one had earned B s, and one had earned C s in previous Japanese classes. Based on their responses, problematic items were revised. 3.3. Kanji Instruction During the semester, both the control group and the treatment group received the same kanji instructions in class. Students studied three to four kanji everyday in class using An Integrated Course in Elementary Japanese Genki II (Japan Times, 2006). Kanji was taught through memory strategies such as mnemonics. However, context was not given for this kanji instruction. Strategies for inferencing strategies of unknown kanji were also not introduced in class. In addition to regular kanji instruction in class, only the treatment group received a total of six weekly 50 minute-training sessions focusing on strategies on lexical inferencing of kanji. In these extra sessions, context-based strategies were taught. The treatment group learned to use the morphological and contextual cues to infer the meaning of unknown kanji. Each session was conducted as follows: STEP 1: Students analyzed morphological structures of kanji using pictures or knowledge of radicals. STEP 2: The teacher introduced kanji compounds in which each radical or kanji is used. Students were asked to guess the meaning through word-analysis in pairs. 39

STEP 3: The teacher gave a short sentence or passage in which those kanji compounds are used. In pairs, students guessed the meaning from contextual information. STEP 4: In pairs, students re-evaluated their guesses using both word-analysis and contextual reasoning. STEP 5: The class discussed their thoughts about the activities. The main purpose of the sessions was to raise students awareness of strategies of lexical inferencing. Pair-work based on the study of Morrison (1996) was used for the activity. Pairs think-aloud protocols were used in her study and participants expressed positive comments about the process. Verbalizing their thoughts and sharing them with another person gave participants other input, suggestions, and different interpretations of the text. Participants also felt more comfortable working in pairs than working alone. Morrison (1996) suggests that this procedure could become an interesting training tool for teachers to teach strategies on lexical inferencing. I adopted Morrison s pairs thinkaloud protocols. As one strategy for teaching new kanji, keyword mnemonics with pictures were used. Most pictures are taken from Kanji Isn t That Hard (ALC, 1999) by Yoshiaki Takebe. New kanji introduced were chosen from the kanji list for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test Level 3 and 4. All kanji in the list were categorized by radicals first and the most frequently-used radicals were chosen. In addition to keyword mnemonics, radicals were also introduced for students to gain morphological knowledge in sessions. Each compound was made using introduced kanji. I chose compounds based on two criteria: (1) those which students will hear frequently in daily life when they go to Japan or when they watch Japanese news or drama; (2) those which match students interests. Each compound was introduced in sentences after students guessed the meaning through morphological analysis. 4. Results The results were analyzed by comparing the means of test scores. Comparing the means of pre-tests between the control group and the treatment group, there was no difference in their kanji inferencing and reading comprehension between the control and treatment groups. The two-sample t-test and non-parametric Mann-Whitney test were used to find out if there were significant differences between the means of two test scores on the kanji tests and between the means of two test scores on the reading tests between the control group and the treatment group. 4.1. The Treatment Effect on Kanji Inferencing Table 4.1 presents students scores on the multiple-choice kanji pre-test and posttest. The class mean score on the pre-test was 11.96. The mean score of the control group (M=12.13) was higher than the class mean score by 0.4, while the mean score of the treatment group (M=11.69) was lower than the class mean by 0.27. The standard deviations of the treatment group and the control group were 3.32 and 2.82, respectively. For the post-test, the class mean score was 11.70, which was lower than the mean score of the pre-test (M=11.96) by 0.26. The mean score of the control group (M=11.09) was lower than the class mean score by 0.61, while the mean score of the treatment group (M=12.13) was higher than the class mean by 0.43. The standard deviations for the posttests of the treatment group and the control group were 2.99 and 3.72, respectively. There 40

was no statistically significant difference in both pre- and post-tests between the control group and the treatment group. Table 4.2 shows that the change in scores between the treatment group and the control group, as analyzed by the two sample t-test. Comparing the means of the changes in scores, one should notice that the treatment group gained by 0.44. However, the control group s mean score in the post test dropped to -1.27. The difference between the change in scores of the treatment group and the change in scores of the control group is 1.71. The standard deviation of these changes in scores in the treatment group and the control group was 3.08 and 3.10, respectively. The T-test has shown that the difference in the kanji test score improvement between the treatment and control groups is not significant at the α=.05 level, but it is significant at the α=.10 level (t 21 =1.41, p<.10). The change in scores was also analyzed by comparing median scores in a twosample non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. The difference between the change in median scores of the treatment group and the change in median scores of the control group is 2. Similarly, the test results show that the difference in the test score improvement between the treatment and control groups is not significant at the α=.05 level but is significant at the α=.10 level. 4.2. The Treatment Effect on Reading Students scores from the reading pre-test and post-test are shown in Table 4.3. The class mean score on the pre-test was 22.04. The mean score of the control group was 22.27, and that of the treatment group was 21.86. However, this difference was not statistically significant. The treatment group and the control group had standard deviations of 5.55 and 4.29, respectively. The class mean score on the post test was 22.96, which was higher than that on the pre-test (M=22.04) by 0.92. The mean score of the control group (M=20.82) was significantly lower than the mean score of the treatment group (M=24.4). The standard deviations of the treatment group and the control group were 4.44 and 5.31, respectively. In other words, as in the kanji tests, the gain of the treatment group performed was statistically significantly better than that of the control group. The change in scores between the treatment group and the control group, as presented in Table 4.4, was analyzed by the two sample t-test. A comparison of the means of the changes in scores reveals that the treatment group gained by 2.56. However, the control group dropped its mean score in the post test to -1.45. The difference between the change in scores of the treatment group and the change in scores of the control group is 4.01. The standard deviations of the change in scores in the treatment group and the control group were 4.0 and 3.45, respectively. The T-test has shown that the difference in the reading score improvement between the treatment and control groups is significant at the α=.01 level (t 23 =2.79, p<.01). The change in scores was also analyzed by median scores using a two-sample non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. The difference between the change in median scores of the treatment group and the change in median scores of the control group is 3. Similarly, the test results show that the difference in the test score improvement between the treatment and control groups is significant at the α=.01 level. 41

5. Discussion The present study examined the effectiveness of explicit instruction in kanji inferencing strategies. Results have shown that the gain of the treatment group on the kanji tests was modestly higher than that of the control group, and that the treatment group s gain on the reading comprehension tests was statistically significant. These findings support the prediction that extra instruction on kanji learning strategies would enhance students kanji learning and reading comprehension. The findings in this study suggest that it is likely that explicit instruction in lexical inferencing strategies of kanji is beneficial for students. First of all, the results from this study suggest that context-based kanji instruction is beneficial to students, which might have contributed to the gain in reading comprehension. Previous research claims that the more students develop reading proficiency, the more effectively they will be able to use contextual cues (Mori & Nagy, 1999; Mori, 2002, 2003; Kondo-Brown 2006). Because using such cues is a skill, it takes time to develop. The strategy instruction on how to use context effectively is likely to help students enhance reading comprehension. Secondly, the results from this study indicate that kanji instruction was successful in raising intraword awareness. In each extra instruction session, students were taught radicals and asked to guess the meaning of kanji having those radicals. After kanji instruction, the feedback was collected from the treatment group. Many students stated that the knowledge of radicals and morphological analysis gave them a good foundation for further study of kanji learning. Some students mentioned that they were intimidated by complex kanji, but once they were taught to break down complex kanji into their simpler elements, they became more comfortable learning kanji as a whole. Clearly, raising intraword awareness is important for the students with alphabetic L1 backgrounds. Furthermore, the results from this study support the contention that explicit strategy instruction contributed to gains in kanji learning and reading comprehension. Students were taught kanji inferencing strategies explicitly and practiced those strategies in kanji instruction. Explicit instruction made students aware of multiple strategies, which might have contributed to raising their metacognitive awareness. Some students even mentioned that they wish they had been taught these strategies at the beginning of the kanji study. Lastly, pairs think-aloud protocols were successful in kanji instruction. The feedback indicates that students enjoyed the pair-work most in kanji instruction. Students felt comfortable guessing with a partner, even though they often made mistakes. Having fun while learning kanji with a partner might have contributed to a positive feeling about learning kanji. The three research questions examined in this study are discussed below. #1: Does increasing morphological knowledge of kanji raise students awareness of radicals and promote the use of morphological cues in interpretation of novel kanji? In this study, the treatment group received extra kanji instruction in recognizing radicals, morphological analysis of kanji, and key mnemonics with pictures, in order to increase morphological knowledge. In each kanji session, students engaged in pair activities in which they guessed the meaning of unknown kanji through morphological analysis. 42

Students feedback showed that they found the knowledge of radicals and morphological analysis of kanji extremely helpful for lexical inferencing of unknown kanji. Students also found that knowledge of radicals and morphological analysis of kanji helped them to memorize new kanji. In kanji instruction, however, as one strategy of teaching new kanji, keyword mnemonics with pictures were also used. Students showed mixed reactions regarding keyword mnemonics with pictures. They agreed that using pictures is a fun way to learn new kanji, but they also found some pictures confusing. However, there was also a contradicting comment regarding keyword mnemonics with pictures. One student mentioned that he remembers some kanji more clearly than others because strange pictures helped him to learn them. In kanji instruction, students enjoyed guessing the meaning of unknown kanji using morphological knowledge of kanji in pairs, which promoted the use of morphological cues for lexical inferencing. Although students often made mistakes in lexical inferencing of kanji, this study shows that students raised their awareness of morphological knowledge, which promoted the use of morphological cues for lexical inferencing of kanji. #2: Does learning how to use contextual cues appropriately promote students use of context-based strategies? This study also supports the notion that the appropriate use of contextual cues will support lexical inferencing. One thing I noticed through kanji instruction is that most students did not know how to use context for lexical inferencing of kanji. At the beginning, many students stopped lexical inferencing of kanji after their morphological analysis and did not try to use the context to support lexical inferencing of kanji. However, after kanji instruction, many students mentioned that context was helpful to figure out the meaning of kanji. Several students also mentioned that context helped them to memorize and understand kanji better. Kanji instruction helped students to become aware of contextual cues for lexical inferencing. However, as mentioned before, the previous studies indicate that students acquire the appropriate use of contextual reasoning as they become more proficient (Mori & Nagy, 1999; Kondo-Brown, 2006). Through kanji instruction, I found the need to emphasize the use of context and provide students with more practice so that they can use context effectively. This study provides evidence that the appropriate use of contextual cues cannot be acquired easily. However, this study also supports the contention that the appropriate use of contextual cues will support lexical inferencing. #3: Does kanji learning strategy instruction improve reading comprehension? The finding of this study supported the prediction that explicit instruction on kanji learning strategies would improve reading comprehension. After kanji instruction, students found that they gained more confidence in lexical inferencing of kanji than before. Most students wanted to continue kanji instruction much longer, which shows their increased motivation toward the study of kanji. Thus, motivational factors might have to be taken into consideration. Students comments might be considered evidence supporting Shimizu and Green s (2002) argument that teacher s teaching strategies might influence students perceptions about kanji. This is also considered as supporting the findings from Mori and Shimizu (2007), who found that students attitudes toward kanji and their perceptions of kanji learning strategies could be related to their strategy use. In 43

other words, extra instruction in kanji and introduction of new strategies might have influenced students perceptions about kanji and increased their motivation. The positive results from this study suggest that new strategies helped students gain confidence and motivation to study, leading to improvement of reading comprehension. 6. Limitations There are some limitations to be pointed out for this study. First of all, since the size of the sample in this study was small, there is a limitation to generalize the effectiveness of explicit instructions in lexical inferencing of kanji. Secondly, since there was only one section of the second-year Japanese class at my school, random sampling for the treatment group was not possible and subjects for the treatment were selected on a volunteer basis. Third, extra instruction was given once a week for six weeks, which may have been too short of a period to provide input for students to acquire lexical inferencing skills of kanji. Lastly, the treatment group received extra kanji instruction outside the class. Therefore, the difference in the length of the kanji study between the treatment and control groups might have influenced the results. However, previous studies indicate that the amount of instruction may affect students learning strategies and attitudes toward kanji. Therefore, positive results in this study will support the claim that explicit instruction in lexical inferencing strategies of kanji is beneficial for students. In future research, access to a larger sample and random sampling would be desirable, so that the treatment and control groups would have the same amount of input. Larger populations, of course, provide more statistically valid data. Also, to be able to see significant improvement, future studies should establish a longer time period for instruction. Another consideration would be to assess the input of providing kanji instruction more frequently, such as twice a week. 7. Pedagogical implications Of all the tasks required to learn Japanese, most students find kanji the most difficult. The previous research revealed that most students use rote memorization as their learning strategy and most teachers teach kanji through rote memorization. Also, teaching strategies influence students perceptions about kanji and their learning of kanji. Although there were limitations on the number of subjects and sampling availability, this study has shown gains in both kanji learning and reading comprehension for students who received extra instruction on lexical inferencing strategies. In addition, explicit instruction on inferencing strategies of kanji seemed to help students to gain confidence and motivation and improve their reading comprehension. Through kanji instruction, students became aware of the use of morphological knowledge and context for lexical inferencing. However, it cannot be assumed that all students can use both context and morphological information effectively. Instruction in lexical inferencing of kanji will help students to raise their motivation and awareness of strategies in dealing with unknown kanji in authentic reading texts and motivation, which will eventually enhance their inferencing skills and improve reading comprehension, although it may take a long period of time. This study also made me, as a teacher, realize the importance of presenting kanji in context. After kanji instruction, several students mentioned that it is easier to memorize kanji in context. 44

Previous research indicates that students acquire the appropriate use of context as they progress in their reading proficiency. Teaching kanji in context from the beginning level of Japanese will be beneficial for students. It is hoped that this study will help teachers to understand that teaching kanji strategies is very important for the development of students reading proficiency. Table 3.1 Demographic Information of the Control Group (N=11) Gender Major Male 8 Female 3 First Language English 10 Vietnamese 1 Length of Japanese Study 1 year 6 2 years 4 2.5 years 1 Table 3.2 Demographic Information of the Treatment Group (N=16) Gender Major Male 11 Female 5 First Language English 14 Vietnamese 1 Spanish 1 Length of Japanese Study 1 year 13 2 years 2 2.5 years 1 Asian Studies 3 Business 2 Graphic Design 2 Computers 1 English 1 History 1 Undecided 1 Business 4 Asian Studies 3 Computers 1 Engineering 1 History 1 Humanities 1 Mathematics 1 Photography 1 Physics 1 Spanish 1 Undecided 1 Table 4.1 Summary of Kanji Test Scores Treatment Group (N=16) Control Group (N=11) Pre-test post-test Pre-test post-test Group Mean 11.69 12.13 12.36 11.09 Std. Deviation 3.32 2.99 2.83 3.72 Note: The mean score ranges from 0 to 20. Table 4.2 Summary of Score Changes between Pre-test and Post-test in Kanji Mean Std. Deviation Median Treatment Group (N=16) 0.44 3.08 1.00 Control Group (N=11) -1.27 3.10-1.00 45

Table 4.3 Summary of Reading Test Scores Treatment Group (N=16) Control Group (N=11) Pre-test post-test Pre-test post-test Group Mean 21.86 24.44 22.27 20.82 Std. Deviation 5.55 4.44 4.29 5.31 Note: The mean score ranges from 0 to 30. Table 4.4 Summary of Score Changes between Pre-test and Post-test in Reading Mean Std. Deviation Median Treatment Group (N=16) 2.56 4.00 2.00 Control Group (N=11) -1.45 3.45-1.00 Appendix A:Sample Items of Multiple-choice Kanji Test Directions: Each Japanese sentence below has a word or phrase underlined, followed by four numbered English definitions. Choose the best definition for the word or phrase underlined in the sentence. Most words will be unfamiliar to you. Guess the meanings of the words or phrases. Pay attention to both the sentence context and the meaning of characters that make up the words or phrases. Choose only one answer for each question and do not leave any questions blank. #1: こたえがわからなかったので 白紙で出した 1. blank 2. white paper 3. without knowing answers 4. recycling #2: 彼女の長所は明るくてやさしいところだ 1. strong point 2. character 3. language 4. long place Appendix B:Sample Items of Reading Test Modified from The 2006 Japanese Language Proficiency Test Level 3 and 4 Questions and Correct Answers (Bonjinsha, 2007) つぎ次 ぶん よ の文を読 しつもんんで 質問 こた に答えなさい しょうかい ( すずきさんは新しいアパートをさがしたいと思っています アパートを紹介する店に行きました ) すずき あのう アパートをさがしているんですが 店の人 どんなアパートをさがしているんですか すずき そうですね. やっぱり 明るい方が. 店の人 このアパートはどうですか となりに大きな建物がないし ( 1 ) しゃしん ほう から 明るいですよ これが写真です たてもの 46

えきすずき ああ いいですね このアパートは 駅からどれくらいかかりますか ある 店の人 歩いて 5 分です すずき そうですか べんりですね この部屋は一か月いくらですか 店の人 7 万円です すずき えっ 7 万円ですか 私が今住んでいる部屋は 4 万円ぐらいだから ちょっと. へやえき店の人 ( 2 ) では この部屋はどうですか このアパートも駅から近くていいですよ えき すずき あの 私は車がないので 駅から ( 3 ) でも 高いアパートには住めません 一か月 3 万円ぐらいの安いアパートはありませんか 古くてもいいですから 店の人 3 万円ですか そうですね さがしてみます ええと あ ありました へや ちょっと 古いですが 部屋は二つで 窓も大きいですよ 今から 見に行きますか すずき ええ 見たいです へや へや まど #1:( 1 ) には何を入れますか まど A. 窓が大きい へや B. 部屋が二つある えき C. 駅から近い D. 一か月 7 万円だ #2:( 2 ) には何を入れますか A. そうですよ 高いですよ B. そうですか 高いですか C. そうですよ 安いですよ D. そうですか 安いですか #3:( 3 ) には何を入れますか A. 近くないほうがいいです B. 近いほうがいいです C. 近いかもしれません D. 近くないかもしれません #4: すずきさんはどんなアパートを見に行きますか A. べんりで高いアパート B. 広くて高いアパート C. 明るくて安いアパート D. 新しくて安いアパート いちばんめしょうかい #5: 店の人が一番目に紹介したアパートは一か月いくらでしたか A. 7 万円 B.4 万円 C. 3 万円 D. 5 万円 Appendix C: Sample Lesson Plan このセッションでは 絵からできた形容詞の漢字を取り上げます 今日は 漢字の意味がどのように派生しているかを紹介します 前作業ペアになって 既に習った漢字 ( 形容詞を表すものだけ ) の意味を確認させる そのあと クラスで答え合わせする 本作業 1. 形容詞を表す新しい漢字の紹介 47

ペアになって漢字の例を見て どんな意味か推測させる そのあと クラスで答えを確認する ( それぞれの漢字の絵のコピーをあげる ) 2. 一つの漢字の意味がどのように派生しているか の紹介一つの漢字の意味がどのように派生しているか ペアで考えさせる そのあと クラスで話し合う 3. 今日紹介した漢字を基にしてできた複合語を紹介し 学生にペアになって意味を推測させる そのあと クラスで話し合う ( 答えは教えない ) 4. 3 の答えを確認するために それぞれの複合語を使った文を読ませ ペアになって答えを選択させる そのあと クラスで答えあわせをする 後作業 ( クラスディスカッション ) それぞれが推測した意味 ( 正しいものも間違っていたものも含めて ) を比べて 漢字の意味を推測するのに 漢字のつくりだけじゃなくてコンテクストも大切であることに気づかせる Appendix D: Sample Handout for the Kanji Session かん字のルール (1) 形容詞 ( けいようし ) も絵 ( え ) になります (2) 意味が二つある漢字もあります #1: Let's review kanji for adjectives which we already studied. 大きい小さい高い安い新しい古い長い近い明るい早い 悪い親しい広い楽しい正しい強い青い赤い白い少ない #2: Guess the meaning of each kanji using radicals and shapes and choose the appropriate meaning from the following list. 1. 遠い 2. 暑い 3. 弱い 4. 多い 5. 暗い 6. 短い 7. 重い 8. 黒い 9. 寒い 10. 低い 11. 軽い black, hot, dark, cold, light, heavy, weak, many, low, short (length), far #3: Each kanji has a meaning, but often kanji might have more than two meanings. One meaning can derive from the original meaning. Let s think about how meanings are derived. Match the original meaning with the derived meaning. Original meaning: 空 角 市 長 背 表 sky horn market long back to display Derived meaning: outside, disobey, chief, city, corner, empty #4: 下のかん字の意味は何ですか? ちょうなん 1. 長男 けいしょく 8. 軽食 たんき 2. 短気 しかく 3. 四角 しょうじょ 9. 空手 10. 少女 えんそく 4. 遠足 くろじ 11. 黒字 あんさつ 5. 暗殺 らくてんか 12. 楽天家 よわき 6. 弱気 ひょうじょう 13. 表情 じゅうりょく 7. 重力 せびろ 14. 背広 48

#1: 彼は今 彼女にプロポーズしようと思っている でも お金がなくて 高いゆびわを買えないので 少し弱気になっている 1. short-tempered 2. frustrated 3. timid 4. lacking energy #2: 小学生の時 学校の遠足で バスに乗って東京に行ったことがある 1. marathon 2. excursion 3. competition 4. donation ちょうじょじなん #3: うちには長男と長女と次男がいます 長男は大学生で 長女と次男はまだ中学生です 1. long-haired man 2. eldest son 3. grandfather 4. the first child かるある #4: 月の上では重力が軽くなるから 歩くのはたいへんそうだ 1. gravity 2. body weight 3. strength 4. air quality #5: 彼女はもう四十歳になるが 今も少女のようだ 1. special woman 2. small woman 3. fairy 4. young girl #6: 一年前はお金がなくてたいへんだったが さいきん会社がやっと黒字になって 安心した 1. black character 2. surplus 3. deficit 4. stable #7: 楽天家だから いつも明るい あまり悪い事をかんがえないと言っていた 1. optimist 2. music lover 3. fortune-teller 4. lucky person あらわ #8: (^_^) と : -) はわらっている表情を表します 1. feelings 2. masks 3. facial expressions 4. signs #9: 飛行機の中で 一回 軽食が出るそうだ 1. snacks 2. drinks 3. diet food 4. special food 49

Appendix E:Feedback from the Treatment Group How were kanji sessions overall? What did you learn from kanji sessions? *Each bullet below represents some of the student responses to these questions. Very educational. I learned about elements that combine to make up a kanji character, so I could understand some of the meaning. I made a good beginning and laid a good foundation for further study. I would like to participate more. I can see how helpful these kinds of sessions can be. Knowing the meaning of the kanji radicals provides good memory aids for memorizing.. They were very fun. Sometimes it was a little scary when I couldn t grasp everything that was being taught, but I feel like I learned a lot. The parts about learning to break the kanji down into its pieces to figure out what it means have really helped me remember the meaning for a lot more kanji. I really liked the kanji sessions. Knowing radicals helped me to remember difficult kanji. Using context was helpful for figuring out the kanji s meaning. Kanji is interesting but very difficult. These kanji sessions helped me come up with ways to figure out some of the challenging kanji. It was extremely useful! I feel like I learned a lot. I feel more confident in my guesses about the meanings of unknown kanji. Very helpful in understanding the radicals and interpreting what each means, Kanji is still difficult but I think it is a great first step in understanding kanji. I liked the sessions and it was helpful. Knowing the makeup of kanji helps in guessing the meaning. It would be better if we met more often. Also, context helped me remember. I still find it difficult, but in context, it has become easier. It is easier to guess kanji using parts, meanings, and context. Overall, the sessions were useful and interesting. I learned how to interpret kanji radicals, especially paying attention to the context. Kanji sessions were fun. However, some pictures didn t really make sense. They were so strange they forced me to remember the kanji. The kanji sessions were very helpful. I wish kanji sessions were a little longer. Hopefully we can do this again next semester. 50

References Banno, E., Ohono, Y., et. al. (2005). An Integrated course in elementary Japanese Genki Vol.1. 1st ed. Tokyo: Japan Times. Banno, E., Ohono, Y., et. al. (2006). An Integrated course in elementary Japanese Genki Vol.2. 1st ed. Tokyo: Japan Times. Bengeleil, N. and Paribakht, T. (2004). L2 reading proficiency and lexical inferencing by university EFL learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 225-249. Carrell, P. (1989) Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134. Chikamastu, N. (1996). The effects of L2 orthography on L2 word recognition: A study of American and Chinese learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 403-432. Halpern, J. Ed. (1999). The Kodansha kanji learner s dictionary. Tokyo: Kodansha. Henshall, K. (2000). A guide to remembering Japanese characters. 1st ed. Boston: Tuttle Publishing. AIE and Japan Foundation. (2003). The 2002 Japanese language proficiency test level 3 and 4 questions and correct answers. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. JEES and Japan Foundation. (2005). The 2004 Japanese language proficiency test level 3 and 4 questions and correct answers. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. JEES and Japan Foundation. (2007). The 2006 Japanese language proficiency test level 3 and 4 questions and correct answers. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Kano, C., Shimizu, Y., et. al. (1999). 基本漢字 500:Basic Kanji Book Vol. 1 3rd ed. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Kano, C., Shimizu, Y., et. al. (2004). 基本漢字 500:Basic Kanji Book Vol. 2 5th ed. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Koda, K. (1988). Cognitive process in second language reading: Transfer of L1 reading skills and strategies. Second Language Research, 4, 133-156. Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: Problems and possibilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 1-28. Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding 51

skills. Modern Language Journal, 83, 51-64. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). How do English L1 learners of advanced Japanese infer unknown kanji words in authentic texts? Language Learning, 56(1), 109-153. Mori, Y. (1998). Effects of first language and phonological accessibility on kanji recognition. Modern Language Journal, 82, 69-82. Mori, Y. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to the ability to integrate information from word parts and context in interpreting novel kanji words. Modern Language Journal, 83, 534-547. Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49, 377-415. Mori, Y. & Nagy, W. (1999). Integration of information from context and word elements in interpreting novel kanji compounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 80-101. Mori, Y. (2002). Individual differences in the integration of information from context and word parts in interpreting unknown kanji words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 375-397. Mori, Y. (2003). The role of context and word morphology in learning new kanji words. Modern Language Journal 87(3), 404-420. Mori, Y. and Shimizu, H. (2007). Japanese language students' attitudes toward kanji and their perceptions on kanji learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), 472-490. Mori, Y., Sato, K., and Shimizu, H. (2007). Japanese language students' perceptions on kanji learning and their relationship to novel kanji word learning ability. Language Learning, 57(1), 57-85. Moroishi, M. (1999). Explicit vs. implicit learning: Acquisition of the Japanese conjectural auxiliaries under explicit and implicit conditions. In N. Jungheim and P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the 3rd pacific second language research forum, volume 2, 217-237. Morrison, L. (1996). Talking about words: A study of French as a second language learner s lexical inferencing procedures. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 41-75. Nagy, W. E. and Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330. 52

Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A reasarch synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Shimizu, H. and Green, K. (2002). Japanese language educators' strategies for and attitudes toward teaching kanji. Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 227-241. Shu, H. and Anderson, R. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition of Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 78-89. Takebe, Y. (1993). 漢字はむずかしくない :24 の法則ですべての漢字がマスターできる Tokyo : ALC. Umesao, T., Kindaichi, H., et.al. (1997). 日本語大辞典 2nd ed. Tokyo: Kodansha. 53