EDSL 617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
Professor: Dr. Thomas Cobb
Student: Seong Man Park (260043746)
The Comparison of Korean Students’ Reaction Time
to Roman Alphabet
McGill University
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
2
Introduction
Randall and Meara (1988) tried to find the differences of reading strategies
between native Arabic speakers and native English speakers through the investigation of
their reaction time to Arabic letters and Roman letters in their study. Through this study,
they (Randall & Meara, 1988) found that native Arabic speakers reacted to Roman
alphabet differently compared to native English speakers’ way of reacting to Roman
alphabet. They attributed this result to Arabic readers’ radically different writing system
and reading direction and so on. In addition, their study showed that the reading strategy
of Arabic learners of English had not been changed and evolved regardless of the
improvement of their English language proficiency. In this study, Randall and Meara
(1988) compared two groups based on their different “academic sophistication” (p. 140),
but they did not consider the difference of their English language proficiency level. They
should have included one more group which had different English proficiency level. In
order to supplement this weakness, I included one more subject who was proficient in
English language with Korean L1 background.
As you know, Koreans use our own letters called ‘Hangul’ and these letters are
quite different from Roman alphabet. But the writing system in Korean language is
similar to the writing system in English language. The reading direction is also exactly
same with the reading direction of English language. In this respect, this experiment will
be very interesting, because these two languages have similarities and differences at the
same time.
Through my experiment, I am going to explore how native Korean speakers react
to Roman alphabet. And I am also going to compare the differences depending on the 3
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
3
subjects’ different English proficiency levels and different academic levels. In addition,
I am going to explore whether Korean learners of English have different reading
strategies in reading Roman alphabet or not compared to the way native English speakers
react to Roman alphabet. And finally, I am going to explore whether different English
proficiency and academic levels can affect their reading strategies to Roman alphabet or
not.
Methodology
Three experiments are carried out using the Reaction Timer (see Appendix 1).
The Reaction Timer is built based on the 150 five-letter strings composed of non-words
made by me. The set of 26 English upper case letters are used in these experiments for
the precise comparison of the results of these experiments to “an upward-sloping Mshape” (Randall & Meara, 1988, p. 136) which used English upper case letters. Non
words are used in order that subjects may not be interfered by the definitions of the real
words while they are doing their task.
The strings include 100 Yes items which contain a target letter ‘T’ and 50 No
items which do not contain a target letter ‘T’. The subjects are asked to find ‘T’ as a
target word in their experiment. They are asked to type 1 for Yes, 3 for No, and 2 for the
next strings. And they are allowed to try demo before they start. All the above conditions
are equally applied for three experiments.
Experiment 1
Subject: 1 Korean student who is in grade 8th. She has been studying English at
College Prep International Secondary school in Canada as an international student since
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
4
last September. Her main schooling was instructed in Korean before she came to Canada.
But she had learned English since she was a grad 1st student in Korea through private
lessons.
Experiment 2
Subject: 1 Korean-Canadian student who was born in Canada. She is in grade 8th
at Canadian Secondary school. Her main schooling was instructed in English. But she
speaks Korean fluently and she usually uses Korean at home with her parents.
Experiment 3
Subject: 1 Korean graduate student who has been studying at McGill University
since last September. But his main schooling was instructed in Korean before he came to
Canada.
Results
Experiment 1
Table 1 represents the mean reaction times per target position. 1.33% error rate is lower
than 2% and this rate is very low. There are no statistically significant differences among
target positions based on the result of one-way ANOVA which shows 0.13 p value is
bigger than 0.05 level. Interestingly, Figure 1 shows a little bit tilted M-shaped curve
which can be characterized as the normal pattern for English native speakers. (Randall &
Meara, 1988, p. 136)
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
5
Table 1: Mean reaction times (milliseconds) in Experiment 1
Error rate: 1.333%, p value: 0.13 (p>.05)
Target Position
1
2
3
4
5
Mean RT
608.9
715.05
669
792.75
689.50
ST DEV
95.5
189.36
135.16
201.53
152.88
Figure 1: Experiment 1
Experiment 1
Reaction Time
1000
900
800
700
600
500
1
2
3
4
5
Target Position
Experiment 2
Table 2 represents the mean reaction times per target position. The result shows also low
error rate (2%). There are statistically significant differences among target positions
based on the result of one-way ANOVA which shows 0.048 p value is smaller than 0.05
level. Based on p value, Tukey HSD test shows that there is a difference between the
mean RT of target position 1 and the mean RT of target position 4. As I expected, Figure
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
6
2 also shows a little bit tilted M-shaped curve which can be characterized as the normal
pattern for English native speakers (Randall & Meara, 1988, p. 136).
Table 2: Mean reaction times (milliseconds) of Experiment 2
Error rate: 2%, p value 0.048 (<0.05)
Target Position
1
2
3
4
5
Mean RT
568.8
692.2
625.85
768.7
697.55
ST DEV
65.8
195
89.7
190.7
183.7
Figure 2: Experiment 2
Experiment 2
Reaction Time
1000
900
800
700
600
500
1
2
3
Target Position
4
5
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
7
Experiment 3
Table 3 represents the mean reaction times per target position. The result shows 0 % error
rate. There are no statistically significant differences among target positions based on the
result of one-way ANOVA which shows 0.21 p value is bigger than 0.05 level. Figure 3
also shows a little bit tilted M-shaped curve.
Table 3: Mean reaction times (milliseconds) of Experiment 3
Error rate: 0%, p value: 0.21 (>0.05)
Target Position
1
2
3
4
5
Mean RT
734.3
887.6
825.05
851.55
740.7
ST DEV
145.83
238.45
185.75
144.9
113.12
4
5
Figure 3: Experiment 3
Experiment 3
Reaction Time
1000
900
800
700
600
500
1
2
3
Target Position
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
8
Conclusion
Interestingly, all three results show the M-shaped curve regardless of their
differences in English proficiency and academic levels. Before I started this investigation,
I expected that native Korean readers would react to Roman alphabet differently
compared to native English readers, because Koreans usually recognize letters as chunks
based on syllabic system. But the results showed no differences. Of course, I cannot
conclude that Koreans have the same reading strategy in English reading with native
English readers have with just small samples. In addition, I think that the second subject
can be regarded as a native English speaker because her main schooling language and
preferable language is English, even though she has a good command of Korean.
With regard to the recognition speed per target position, the results showed that
all three subjects recognized the leftmost letters faster than the rightmost letters, even
though the result of Experiment 3 showed a very small difference between two positions.
This result can be attributed to the same reading direction of English and Korean from
left to right. And the rightmost letters were also recognized faster than the other positions,
because the Korean language usually has grammatical factors at the end of words such as
the case and tense differences and so on like English.
In conclusion, subjects’ different English proficiency and academic levels did not
make any difference in this experiment. Which means similarities got an advantage over
differences between English and Korean in this case. But as I said before, I cannot assert
or conclude that this result represents the general reading strategy of Korean readers. In
order to get a more profound result, I think I have to investigate Korean readers’ reading
strategy to Korean letters and Roman alphabet at the same time with large sample size.
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
References
Cobb, T. (2001). The Compleat Lexical Tutor (Version 3) [RT Expt. Builder]. Retrieved
June 8, 2004, from http://www.lextutor.ca
Randall, M. & Meara, P. (1988). How Arabs Read Roman Letters. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 4(2), 133-145.
VassarStats: Web Site for Statistical Computation. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from
http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/VassarStats.html
9
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
Appendix 1
10
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
11
Appendix 2
Experiment 1: Statistical Result
VassarStats Printable Report
One-Way ANOVA for 5 Independent Samples
Sat Jun 12 11:56:36 EDT 2004
Values Entered
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
0.53
0.5
0.731
0.741
0.671
0.521
0.561
0.601
0.661
0.841
0.751
0.591
0.611
0.601
0.551
0.611
0.501
0.531
0.531
0.541
0.972
0.51
0.771
0.791
0.571
0.601
0.42
0.621
0.561
0.882
1.112
0.611
0.721
0.821
0.581
1.052
0.691
0.821
0.721
0.47
0.942
0.611
0.641
0.561
0.49
0.861
0.611
0.701
0.621
0.62
0.651
0.671
0.792
0.65
0.601
0.571
0.591
0.511
0.671
1.012
0.701
0.841
0.942
1.101
0.732
1.042
0.701
0.591
0.791
0.641
0.581
1.082
0.601
0.571
0.681
0.541
0.611
1.101
1.011
0.992
0.551
0.912
1.102
0.601
0.961
0.63
0.541
0.641
0.751
0.731
0.621
0.751
0.771
0.691
0.621
0.531
0.58
0.571
0.681
0.551
Data Summary
Samples
1
2
3
4
5
Total
21
21
21
21
21
105
- X
12.178
14.301
13.38
15.855
13.79 69.504
-Mean
0.5799
0.681
0.6371
0.755
0.6567 0.6619
N
- X2
7.5885 10.9072 9.2983 13.3408 9.9523 51.087
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
12
Variance
0.0263
0.0584 0.0387
0.0685 0.0448 0.0488
Std.Dev.
0.1622
0.2417 0.1966
0.2617 0.2118
Std.Err.
0.0354
0.0527 0.0429
0.0571 0.0462 0.0216
0.221
ANOVA Summary
Source
Treatment
SS
df
0.3443
4
MS
F
P
0.0861 1.8165 0.131539
[between groups]
Error
4.735
100 0.0474
Ss/Bl
Total
5.0793 104
Ss/Bl = Subjects or Blocks depending on the design.
Applicable only to correlated-samples ANOVA.
Tukey HSD Test
This test will be performed only if K>2
and the analysis of variance yields a
significant F-ratio.
M1 = mean of Sample 1
M2 = mean of Sample 2
and so forth.
HSD = the absolute [unsigned]
difference between any two
sample means required for
significance at the designated
level. HSD[.05] for the .05 level;
HSD[.01] for the .01 level.
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
13
Experiment 2: Statistical Result
VassarStats Printable Report
One-Way ANOVA for 5 Independent Samples
Sat Jun 12 11:54:08 EDT 2004
Values Entered
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
0.563
0.594
0.5
0.422
0.625
0.531
0.453
0.563
0.5
0.578
0.547
0.719
0.578
0.594
0.562
0.594
0.609
0.609
0.625
0.609
0.562
0.453
0.625
0.985
0.516
0.703
0.578
1.312
0.547
0.562
0.625
0.765
0.609
0.687
0.687
0.641
0.641
0.719
0.954
0.672
0.75
0.688
0.563
0.531
0.578
0.547
0.735
0.532
0.672
0.656
0.531
0.516
0.609
0.75
0.844
0.609
0.609
0.594
0.578
0.625
0.844
0.718
0.594
0.719
1.266
0.953
0.531
0.719
0.656
1.032
0.687
0.875
0.641
0.578
0.625
0.687
1.015
0.609
0.672
0.953
0.609
0.61
0.734
0.625
0.641
0.968
0.532
0.625
0.593
0.578
1.312
0.812
0.672
0.578
0.547
0.672
0.843
0.578
0.812
0.61
Data Summary
Samples
N
1
2
3
4
5
Total
21
21
21
21
21
105
- X
11.375
13.843 12.517 15.374 13.951
-Mean
0.5417
0.6592
- X2
Variance
0.596 0.7321 0.6643
67.06
0.6387
6.5518 10.3039 7.9865 12.509 10.373 47.7241
0.0195
0.0589 0.0263 0.0627 0.0552
0.0471
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
Std.Dev.
0.1397
Std.Err.
0.0305
0.2428 0.1621 0.2504
0.053
14
0.235
0.0354 0.0546 0.0513
0.217
0.0212
ANOVA Summary
Source
Treatment
SS
df
0.4417
4
MS
F
P
0.1104 2.4809 0.048631
[between groups]
Error
4.4534 100 0.0445
Ss/Bl
Total
4.8951 104
Ss/Bl = Subjects or Blocks depending on the design.
Applicable only to correlated-samples ANOVA.
Tukey HSD Test
HSD[.05]=0.18; HSD[.01]=0.22
M1 vs M2 nonsignificant
M1 vs M3 nonsignificant
M1 vs M4 P<.05
M1 vs M5 nonsignificant
M2 vs M3 nonsignificant
M2 vs M4 nonsignificant
M2 vs M5 nonsignificant
M3 vs M4 nonsignificant
M3 vs M5 nonsignificant
M4 vs M5 nonsignificant
M1 = mean of Sample 1
M2 = mean of Sample 2
and so forth.
HSD = the absolute [unsigned]
difference between any two
sample means required for
significance at the designated
level. HSD[.05] for the .05 level;
HSD[.01] for the .01 level.
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
15
Experiment 3: Statistical Result
VassarStats Printable Report
One-Way ANOVA for 5 Independent Samples
Sat Jun 12 11:49:40 EDT 2004
Values Entered
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
0.859
0.75
0.656
0.688
0.719
1.265
0.89
0.625
0.61
0.734
0.781
0.641
0.672
0.734
0.703
0.64
0.75
0.672
0.687
0.61
0.891
0.906
0.937
0.719
1.125
0.735
0.734
0.891
1.063
0.812
0.938
0.719
1.766
0.718
0.891
0.687
0.766
0.797
0.891
0.766
0.828
0.766
0.688
0.656
0.859
0.703
0.734
0.813
0.938
0.734
0.688
0.766
0.641
1.109
0.797
0.656
0.969
1.094
1.359
0.703
0.891
0.812
0.703
0.735
0.657
0.937
0.859
1.016
0.766
0.766
0.734
0.672
0.828
0.859
0.828
0.969
1.203
0.875
1.14
0.781
0.734
0.703
0.906
0.688
0.672
0.61
0.735
0.781
1.016
0.688
0.656
0.906
0.906
0.656
0.625
0.672
0.641
0.75
0.813
0.656
Data Summary
Samples
N
1
2
3
4
5
Total
21
21
21
21
21
105
- X
14.686 17.752
16.501
17.031
14.814
80.784
-Mean
0.6993 0.8453
0.7858
0.811
0.7054
0.7694
- X2
Variance
11.188 16.837 14.2697 14.9017 11.2159 68.4122
0.0459 0.0915
0.0652
0.0545
0.0383
0.0602
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
Std.Dev.
Std.Err.
16
0.2142 0.3025
0.2553
0.2334
0.1957
0.2453
0.0467
0.0557
0.0509
0.0427
0.0239
0.066
ANOVA Summary
Source
Treatment
SS
df
MS
0.3521
4
0.088
F
P
1.489 0.211211
[between groups]
Error
5.9072 100 0.0591
Ss/Bl
Total
6.2593 104
Ss/Bl = Subjects or Blocks depending on the design.
Applicable only to correlated-samples ANOVA.
Tukey HSD Test
This test will be performed only if K>2
and the analysis of variance yields a
significant F-ratio.
M1 = mean of Sample 1
M2 = mean of Sample 2
and so forth.
HSD = the absolute [unsigned]
difference between any two
sample means required for
significance at the designated
level. HSD[.05] for the .05 level;
HSD[.01] for the .01 level.
EDSL-617
Teaching and Learning Second Language Vocabulary
17
Appendix 3
Target Letter: T (Non-Words)
OOOOT Style: 20
ABOCT
BNHOT
GOPQT
FGQRT
VOPRT
QWRVT
DSELT
PLBVT
OPUIT
VOPGT
OSRBT
QRIPT
LBERT
NBOPT
GOPYT
GFLKT
ASFGT
MLNPT
WEVRT
GORMT
OOOTO Style: 20
ORPTS
QWETR
ASDTH
MNOTP
AFGTU
BCFTI
ERITP
HIOTV
BNVTO
NVBTY
FGHTM
OPQTU
FJOTG
NFGTH
PLOTS
HUJTP
GOPTP
FRETY
QWPTO
GIRTQ
OOTOO Style: 20
FGTYO
BGTPO
BGTMN
DFTGH
BNTRP
MNTBV
AWTRM
KLTMQ
BNTMN
QWTVB
VBTCQ
VBTUO
SETBO
XCTAS
QWTRE
ASTPO
CVTRZ
GOTOP
WETRE
ZWTPK
OTOOO Style: 20
QTREW
STOPR
PTOER
VTYUI
BTORP
NTOQW
NTQPN
CTBKY
PTROP
QTPOI
VTBNP
CTVBP
CTVBN
ATQWR
MTNVB
BTVCX
VTBQR
ZTXCW
XTVNM
DTUIO
TOOOO Style: 20
TOPEV
TCVBW
TPMNV
TEFHL
TIMNV
TADFG
TVFRE
TVBOP
TOMNV
TBYIU
TWLCM
TWERP
TQWER
TVMNC
TOMNX
TRVBN
TIUXZ
TQXWV
TUIOP
TMNBV
Distractors: 50
ADFER
VMNGO
QWRYU
MNLKO
LKFDS
MNFJK
NBVRM
FKPRI
PWERB
MWERP
QPDLN
DLFKR
POMXC
XCVGK
BNVFR
ASXCV
QCXVN
MNCVP
MNVBG
REZXV
ERMXZ
DFLWQ
LKQWX
ASXCV
WRVML
VCMNQ
ZXCVB
WEVGL
ZXBRY
REPOM
XCVRY
MNOPQ
QXBZC
PWOEM
BVDER
BVERP
POMNX
DFGYI
QXVMP
RYPOM
VNRYO
MNDFX
POIMN
ASDFL
CVRPM
MNQWE
POIWX
QMCNV
MEWQX
CVZQW