Practitioner notes

Introduction and review of the literature

Results of international and local tests that involve reading in L1 are low. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluates the quality, equity, and efficiency of educational systems. Seventy-two countries around the world are within this program. This program has evaluated 540,000 fifteen-year-old students. The international average (72 countries included) for reading comprehension was 493 from the total grade that was 1000 (OCDE, 2016). Flotts et al. (2015), in the Third Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (TERCE, abbreviation in Spanish), evaluated primary schools from Latin America and the Caribbean. Fifteen countries and the state of Nuevo Leon – Mexico were assessed. The sample represented 170,097 third-grade students and 229,447 sixth-grade students. Regarding reading, countries with an average below the mean were Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, and Dominican Republic (third and sixth grade). Among all countries, there were 60% and 72% of students in levels I and II, in third and sixth grade, respectively. In Ecuador, 62% and 77% of the students were in level I (Students can find repeated and isolated information with one meaning) and II (Students can find information in a short text, identify synonyms, recognize simple phrase reformulation and redundancies between graphic and verbal codes) in L1 reading comprehension, 3rd and 6th grade respectively. This means that students had very low reading levels in L1 generally.

Regarding reading in English as a foreign language, a study conducted by the British-Council (2015) reported that respondents with basic reading skill claimed it was because they did not read in English frequently enough (45%), others said they had not been studying English very long (28%), and almost a quarter of Ecuadorian English learners said for different reasons related to the education system constraints. On the contrary, learners who reported having good reading skills said that it was because they practiced reading on their own (43%), others for their education in English language schools (17%), and a few of them because of the use of social media in English (14%).

Ecuadorian learning standards (Ministerio-De-Educación, 2012) state that students should have a B1 English proficiency level when they enter the university, but the reality is that they barely have an A1 level in the public university where this study was developed. This university is located in the urban area and students generally belong to the middle class. The researcher has worked in the place of study for four years and diagnostic tests have always been a requirement. These tests showed students having no more than A1 proficiency level. In this respect, the British-Council (2015) pointed out that even though bachelor´s students graduate with B1, there were not any English requirements to enter university. Thus, this study aimed at students´ real proficiency level, which was A1. According to the Ecuadorian learning standards, A1 students can understand and identify easy information, familiar names, words, and basic vocabulary. Regarding reading strategies, students should be able to come up with the main ideas and identify key information of basic texts (Ministerio-De-Educación, 2012). This level was provided after a proficiency test. The test was developed by an international recognized institution (MM-Publications, 2021). It places students from A1 to C1. It was chosen due to its availability and facility. Additionally, students receive the scores in their mail.

This study was conducted in a public university in Babahoyo city. Most students in this institution come from public high schools. Students’ ages ranged from 17 to 30 years old. In a pilot sample, students filled out a survey about their vocabulary and reading perspectives. Most of the students (57%) disagreed on understanding a text with the first reading; 71% of the students agreed that they understood a short text by rereading it; 57% of the students agreed on getting an idea about the content of simple informational material with visual support; and, 79% of the students agreed on getting an idea of the content of short simple descriptions with visual support. However, in the open-ended questions of the survey, some students wrote that English words were not easy because they are written differently from their pronunciation, and some words are strange and confusing. Participants indicated they did not use the language outside the classroom. Even though students said they understood short texts, they also mentioned feeling stressed, confused, and scared when they saw a passage and did not know the meaning of the words. These preliminary results motivated this study which aim was to apply a vocabulary intervention to improve reading comprehension. The research objectives were to determine if students improve their vocabulary knowledge, if they improve their reading comprehension in English as Foreign Language (EFL), and their perspectives towards vocabulary and reading comprehension.

Regarding vocabulary, Spratt, Pulverness, and Williams (2005) defined it as an individual or group of words which have their meaning according to the context.Nation (2001) suggested teaching vocabulary by deliberate instruction of form, use, or meaning. This study focuses on the form and meaning. The parts of speech that were considered for this study were the following: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.Sonbul and Schmitt (2009) stated that direct and explicit vocabulary instruction within reading passages is the best pedagogical technique for constructing a vast range of L2 vocabulary and consequently to improve reading proficiency.

Pang, Muaka, Bernhardt, and Kamil (2003) stated that reading is a complex process associated with personal judgement and thought. They added that the process of reading involves word recognition and comprehension. Word recognition is noticing the written word, the spoken language, and comprehension to be knowledgeable with the meaning of the text.Spratt et al. (2005) mentioned that knowing a word involves meaning in context, form and use.

Suleiman-Alyousef (2006) highlighted that reading comprehension is an interactive process between the reader and the text in which different processes take place. For this author, the first process is the automatic recognition of the content. Glenberg (2011), “reading comprehension, much like comprehension of situations and comprehension of oral language, is embodied” (p.5) which means that comprehension includes taking action about the physical world, individual objectives, and cultural background. Burrows and Holsworth (2016) conducted a study about how word recognition technique helped to improve reading comprehension in Japanese students. They concluded that it should be permanently practiced in classrooms.

Some studies have proven that gaining vocabulary through word recognition skills improves students´ reading performance. Cuadro, Balbi, and Luis (2017) demonstrated in their research that precise and fluid word recognition has a great incidence on students’ reading comprehension because of the speed in which students get the accurate comprehension answers. In fact, Nation and Snowling (1998) stated that children with reading comprehension difficulties had weaker semantic skills causing a restriction for word recognition development. Li and Kirby (2014) analyzed the relationship between vocabulary repertoire and vocabulary meaning knowledge with English reading in Chinese students. They said that “both breadth and depth of vocabulary are required for adequate L2 word reading and reading comprehension” (p. 631).

For the purpose of word recognition, Google sheets were used. Firth and Mesureur (2010) stated that Google drive is useful for teaching assignments management, reporting grades, extensive reading, homework production and submission, self and peer assessment, feedback, and collaborative writing. They added that Google drive is a free online tool given by Google. Users can share documents and work collaboratively in real time. It also gives the opportunity to store documents in the cloud hosted on the internet. This tool has Google docs, sheets, and slides. Brescó and Verdú (2014) assessed the use of collaborative tools such as Wikispaces and Google drive in higher education, Google drive obtained better outcomes for communication and organizing work. Furthermore, Moore (2016) emphasized Google Drive as an effective tool, to prepare students for the job market and to be competitive workers.

Teh and Morgan (2005) mentioned that the sheets serve to organize and visualize data in a friendly way. Most of the studies in which sheets were used are related to statistics (Lee, Park, Choi, & Kim, 2016; Siddamsetty, Siddamsetty, & Sivasankar, 2017) or any other numerical subject (Uddin, Ahsanuddin, & Khan, 2017), or even to teach technology (Willis, 2016) but there is not research in which sheets were used for learning a language.

The next step, after word recognition, was that students read and comprehend the content of the text. For that purpose, two strategies are well-recognized to improve reading comprehension: skimming and scanning. Regarding skimming, Spratt et al. (2005) stated that it aims at a general background about the text. Ngoc (2015) emphasized that it allows readers to get the core of a text superficially. The same authors described scanning as a subskill which helps students to look for specific information. Ngoc (2015) established that scanning follows three steps: define the keywords needed, search these words rapidly in the text, and read the content around them to see if they give the information the reader is looking for.

Lastly, students´ perceptions of the use of Google drive was also investigated. Brescó et al. (2014); Sadik (2016) reported that students’ perspectives were positive regarding the use of Google drive. They perceived it as an easy, user-friendly, and useful tool for academic tasks. Students’ attitudes towards using Google drive focused on communication or work organization.

After the literature review, the following gaps have been found in the research: There are not research studies regarding reading in higher education that have explored parts of speech, skimming, and scanning; research included here were applied in international contexts not locally; and, there are not studies that have been implemented to test the effectiveness of Google drive sheets to learn vocabulary in EFL contexts.

Materials and methods

Action Research (AR) was chosen to conduct this study. According to Dick (2015), AR is a set of allied processes which applies different methods and tools in order to provoke a change; and this adjustment should imply an improvement in a specific issue. Thus, this study is an AR with quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Data Analysis

For quantitative questions (No. 1 and 2), the grades of the instruments (pre- posttests) were transferred to the SPSS program. Descriptive statistics were calculated: minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. The effect size was calculated to know the magnitude of the treatment and determine if the impact of the innovation was null, small, intermediate, or large. Then, the researcher calculated the t-test for related samples in SPSS for comparing the means of the pre and posttest. A value of p≤ 0.05 determines a strong evidence that changes after the innovation are due to the intervention.

To answer the third question, a survey was applied to determine students’ perspectives towards vocabulary. Pre and post survey reliability was tested by Cronbach alpha. Items from the survey were classified in complex, neutral, and not complex according to students’ perspectives. After, students’ answers were tabulated in each denomination. Finally, these results were translated in percentage to analyze how results changed after the intervention.

Analysis and results

The results of the study are presented according to the research questions. The first research question: To what extent will students classify vocabulary into parts of speech correctly? The data was classified in word recognition (parts of the speech classification) and the use of the same words, it is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that there was an improvement in classification (10.055– 15.486) and in the usage (3.100 – 3.961) according to the means. Overall, there was an improvement of 6 points (13.15 – 19.44) in the vocabulary section. Finally, Cohen´s d = 1.02 means there was a large effect size.

During the implementation of the strategy, students did three quizzes, each quiz had three categories: number of words, meaning, and usage. Results of progress are shown in Table 2.

As shown inTable 2, the average in the number of words and meaning that students remembered after class sessions was improved slightly. Concerning the word usage, students had an increase from 2.25 to 3.00 in quizzes 1 and 3 respectively, being this section the one they progressed the most. The reason this instrument demonstrated a small upgrade compared to the results of the vocabulary pre and posttests could be the type of exercises in the instruments. In the pre and posttest, students had to classify the underlined words in a given text and then matched them in sentences. On the other hand, in the quizzes students had to remember the words, explain the meaning and then make sentences with them, making the quizzes more difficult in their development. This constant practice may have impacted students’ retention of vocabulary knowledge, and affected the results of the vocabulary and reading comprehension tests.

The second research question: To what extent will students improve their reading comprehension? It is answered through general descriptive statistics shown in Table 3.

As Table 3 shows, there was a slight improvement in skimming (pretest 3.399 – posttest 3.750) and scanning (pretest 4.450 – posttest 4.900) according to their means. Overall, there was an improvement of 0.9 points in the reading comprehension section. Finally, Cohen’s d =0.39 determined a small effect size.

The t-test was run to get the p value. It is p=.000 < 0.05 which means that the difference between the means is significant in relation to before and after the intervention, it was not by chance. It showed that the means were different. To corroborate that the means were statistically different, the t value was obtained (-6.545). It is the result of the division between the mean difference and the standard error mean.

The third research question: What are students' perspectives in classifying parts of speech to improve reading comprehension? A comparison of students´ perspectives was done between the pre and post surveys. At the beginning, 40% of the students thought it was complex in the pre-survey but this percentage decreased to 25% in the post survey. On the other hand, the percentage of students that thought vocabulary was not complex increased from 15% (in the pretest) to 45% in the post survey. The rest of the students were neutral about their perspectives towards vocabulary (pre-survey = 45%, post-survey= 30%). These results indicate that students changed their perspectives positively after the intervention.

Discussion and conclusions

Regarding the first question: To what extent will students classify vocabulary into parts of speech correctly? Findings showed that there was an improvement of 18% in classification and 16% in the usage of the vocabulary, so the classification was slightly better developed by students. These results may have been the result of focusing on the use and form of the vocabulary which Nation (2001) recommended teachers for vocabulary instruction. Additionally, Richards (2006) mentioned, taking advantage of mistakes is an effective principle to learn a language. It was an ally to make students learn the difference between adjectives and adverbs, given than these two items the most difficult to recognize according to the researcher´s observation. Even though there was a low improvement, students became aware of the differences of two parts of speech that they sometimes confused.

The improvement can also be attributed to the collaborative work done by students. They had to add new words and classify them into their parts of speech, according to the context. This work was done through the shared sheet in Google. Collaboration was one of the facilities of using a shared document in Google listed by Brescó et al. (2014); Firth et al. (2010) also reported better results using Google drive in higher education.

To get these positive results explicit vocabulary instruction was applied in the innovation. Using dictionaries and making students pay direct attention to the meaning and use of the words were the keys for their learning, as Sonbul et al. (2009) stated, the explicit vocabulary instruction is an appropriate technique for students with low proficiency level. Moreover, the process on how students developed their vocabulary range was analyzed through quizzes. The results demonstrated that students did not remember more words after classes, but they were aware of the meaning and they could use them. These results may not be related to the ones in the pre and posttests because the design of the quizzes and tests were totally different. Being a group with A1 proficiency level, open questions in the quizzes could have been more difficult to answer than the ones that were multiple choice in the tests.

Regarding the second research question: To what extent will students improve their reading comprehension? Despite reading being a complex process Pang et al. (2003), results showed that students improved in finding main ideas and specific information. So, students improved their reading comprehension by 14%. This achievement is aligned to the Ecuadorian learning standards (2012) in which students are able to comprehend and recognize easy vocabulary and apply skimming and scanning strategies. This demonstrated that applying word recognition technique in the classroom helped students to improve their reading comprehension skill as it has been demonstrated in other research studies (Burrows et al., 2016; Cuadro et al., 2017; Li et al., 2014). (Burrows et al., 2016) recommended teachers to practice recognition techniques to improve reading comprehension. Other authors (Cuadro et al., 2017; Li et al., 2014) also agreed that there is an impact of word recognition in reading and reading comprehension. They highlighted that it raises fluency in reading. Pang et al. (2003) pointed out that word recognition and comprehension are part of reading.Nation et al. (1998) implied the impact of restricted word recognition development in reading comprehension.Suleiman-Alyousef (2006) highlighted the interaction between the reader and the text. In this study, students read the passages different times to determine the meaning of the words in context. Later, they saw the same word in the shared sheet. Thus, this interaction and constant work with vocabulary may have also had an effect in students’ reading comprehension.

Lastly, the third question: What are students' perspectives in classifying parts of speech to improve reading comprehension? Findings showed that students changed positively their perspective about learning vocabulary. They went from 15% of the students considering vocabulary as not complex in the pre-survey to a positive position in which they set vocabulary as not complex (45%) in the post-survey. Students proved to be comfortable using Google Drive sheets. Even though it was a new tool for most of them, the researcher observed that students enjoyed working with Google sheets in the classroom. The same results can be compared to other studies (Brescó et al., 2014; Sadik, 2016).

The aim of this study was to prove how learning parts of the speech and the correct use of the vocabulary could improve students’ reading comprehension skills. Based on the evidence, word recognition and use were useful to improve reading comprehension skills such as skimming and scanning.

It can be concluded that even though there was an improvement in both vocabulary and reading comprehension, students performed better in vocabulary knowledge than in reading comprehension skill, but this result could have been diminished because of the number of the items in the pre and posttest. There were 37 items for vocabulary and 13 for reading comprehension. Thus, fewer items meant less opportunities for students to succeed in the task. This is also related to the quizzes instrument in which students could not perform as well as they did in the test (vocabulary section), due to the open question design, learners could not develop their knowledge fully.

An important finding was that adjectives and adverbs were the most difficult for students to differentiate, but it was good to keep students’ attention at the beginning. Once students identified the difference they got bored with the same repeated classification methodology. Thus, it is recommended to add other parts of speech. Students learned the difference during the seven weeks that this implementation lasted. They were also more confident about learning vocabulary.

Regarding the use of technology, students did not know how to work on shared documents like sheets. At the end, they also perceive Google drive sheets as an easy and friendly tool. This may have prepared them to work online in the current situation due to Covid-19.

This intervention was applied in a short period of time which coincided with the Christmas holiday. There were other extra-curricular activities going on. However, results demonstrated a large impact for learning vocabulary and a small impact for reading comprehension. Thus, it can be inferred that if the intervention is applied over longer period of times the impact can be higher.

All in all, reading comprehension can be raised with the awareness of parts of speech combined with technology. Thus, findings in this study may well serve the EFL community to pay attention to receptive skills to upgrade students’ English level and assist them in reaching the levels according to the standards set by authorities.