Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University comparison of pretest and final exam Semester Sept. - Dec 2019.

This shows our latest results to date. 
These are 4th year students.  English is not their major, but minor, so their English skills were not at par with the other groups we have worked with, but we observe a marked improvement in their skills as we compare the pre-test with the results of the final.

The English Article final test 2019, comparing the whole student body by each year. Apr 2019

This chart (above) shows the test results of the whole student body who took the test and then also compares the results of each group by year.  

• Here we see that the overall did worse than the than the general student body. (unclear)
• The second year overall did better than the general student body. 
• The third year students averaged about the same as the general student body and 
• the fourth year students tended to do better in most areas than the general student body. 

Indicating that through the course of their studies the students have learned basic rules of the English article, however, those who participated in the English article course have a little better understanding of the rules.

The above chart compares the students majoring in translation to each other and with the whole student body.  The whole student body consists of all of the students who are studying English who were tested for proficiency of the English article in 2019.  

• First year translation students are those who are majoring in English translation but have not had opportunity to study the special course designed by Ms. Bergh on the use of the English article. These students showed the same competency as the general student body except they are a little stronger regarding rules:
• Rule 1. Basic "a" and "an" 
• Rule 2. Pluralizing Countable Nouns  
• Rule 8. Places, Streets, the Human Body, Diseases and the Military.
• The second year students showed the most competency.  This is the test group that has been studying this past year with Ms. Bergh in her special article course. (how many?)
• Some of the third year and fourth year students are those that took the special course and studied with Ms. Bergh in previous years.  Although, their competency level is not up to the level  of the second year students, the third year students still showed a higher level of competency than the general group except for the use of:
• Rule 2. Pluralizing Countable Nouns
• Rule 7. Proper Nouns, Geography, Nationalities, Languages and Religions
• Fourth year students specializing in English translation also showed a greater competency in the use of the English article, except they were a little weaker with:
• Rule 3. Uncountable and Countable Nouns.

We want to note here that these translation students did better overall than the average English major student, and we also want to make note that these students have not studied Ms. Bergh's English article course. (Who are these?)

The translation group FPB-117  is the group that took the English article course designed and taught by Ms. Bergh. (Are these the most current students at this writing?  If so we should refer to them by group number throughout this article to keep it clear.)  We see from these results that this group did considerably much better than the English students of the same academic year who did not take the course. 

This chart compares the students studying English translation third year who took the course with Ms. Bergh one year ago, with other students in the English department of the same year studies who did not take the English article course. 
The students who took the English article course, did better than the other groups except for:

• Rule 2 - Pluralizing Countable Nouns
• Rule 7 -  Proper Nouns, Geography, Nationalities, Languages and Religions

This chart compares the fourth year translation students who studied with Ms Bergh 2 years ago to the fourth year students who are studying English as a major and have not taken the English article course. We see these students did better then the other students of the same year of study who did not participate in the English article course designed and taught by Ms. Bergh. Except for rule number 3 identified in the chart above.

Grinchenko 18 Pretest Results with Final Test Results

Analysis from 2018

From the results of these pie charts we can see students are
learning the rules and usage of the article in the English
language.
The Fourth-year students showed they know when to use
the article 70% of the time, however, with this English
article course designed by Trude Bergh for Ryan Research
International, we would like to see students obtaining a
higher percentage of accuracy.
Data from the previous three years’ research is not included
in this analysis, however, we will include their results in the post
test analysis.

Final test

Grinchenko University Pretest 2017

Analysis of chart

We were unable to meet with the students to schedule a final exam.

Grinchenko University 2016 pretest

The next graph shows a LOWER error percentage.

We were unable to meet with students to schedule a final test.

Researching the English Article at Boris Grinchenko University, Kyiv Ukraine January 2016 – September 2017
Trude Bergh & Angela Parsons

Researching Student Proficiency in the Use of the English Article

It is not difficult to identify the origin of Ukrainian speakers of English, because of some characteristic patterns which appear frequently in their English. One notable feature of English as it is spoken by Ukrainians (and other Slavic ethnic groups) is the misuse or the omission of the article. Since articles are nonexistent in most Slavic languages, it is not surprising that Ukrainian learners of English often have problems using them correctly. This is an example of a phenomenon sometimes referred to as L1 interference, or negative transfer. Language transfer occurs when speakers apply the principles and patterns of their native language when expressing themselves in a second language.

When this takes place, it leads to the formation of what is sometimes described as an interlanguage―the learner's version of the language he or she is studying. This interlanguage is usually in a state of constant evolution which reflects the advances made by the learner, but it is also possible for it to become a ‘fossilized’ form of language if the learners do not continue to progress in their mastery of the new language.

To a Ukrainian speaker the article may seem like little more than a meaningless detail or particle, but it is necessary for all learners to perceive that proper usage of articles is essential for effective and fruitful communication. In the next section, we will describe in greater detail how article errors can cause confusion or generate misunderstandings, and how we seek in our program of instruction to make English learners aware that this a reality that demands careful attention.

Having presented this background information about the overall problem associated with this particular grammatical feature of the English language, we can now describe briefly the strategy we will be using in our practical work with students, which produces beneficial results when it is applied in the classroom setting.

Before we began our actual work with article problems, we spend some time trying to help the students to understand the importance of this undertaking, so that they will be motivated to apply themselves seriously during the course. Part of this process involves giving details of potential communication problems related to the article, as we mentioned above. Another part is our description of experiments we have performed with the students in the past, showing how limited they were at the beginning and then how much progress they had made by the end of the course.

The following charts show students' results of the pretests which have been administered at Grinchenko University to second year translation students January 2016 - September 2017 (group FBP 1-16-4).

We present a set of charts to represent each of the 3 semesters of research with Grinchenko University. For the academic year 2017 we have 3 series of charts, one for each of 2 subgroups, and the last series is an analysis that identifies areas of strength and areas of decreased student proficiency. The first of each series shows the mean group results. The following charts compare each individual student to the results of the class average. We plan to present charts representing testing results at the end of the term to display any improvement in performance.

The X-axis of the charts display the rule number. The pretest has 85 questions 

which cover 52 rules.
The Y-axis of the charts display student error percentage. The higher numbers

show a higher error rate.
After this motivational leadin, our lesson plan provides for the use of a video or

a picture to introduce the specific subject to be dealt with. We give them a worksheet to fill in, and then after reviewing their results, we explain how to play a game which we have devised to give specific practice in dealing with the article problem that is being addressed. Playing games of this type gives students the opportunity to develop confidence and improve in working with structures that often are problematic.

Summary of Teaching at Grinchenko University Fall Semester 2016

2nd year students of Natalia Pavliuk

In September the students were given a placement test to assess their particular problems with dealing with the English Article. The main problems are with the following rules:

• 1.1 +1.2 a precedes a countable noun that is singular, indefinite, and begins with a consonant sound.. an precedes a countable noun that is singular, indefinite, and begins with a vowel sound.

• 1.5: a precedes letters with a consonant sound.
  
• 1.6: an precedes letters with a vowel sound.
  
• 3.1: Do not use a, an, or s with an uncountable noun.
  
• 3.3: Do not use a with the words few or little when the quantity of a thing is so small
  

that is almost negligible.

• 5.4: Use the with adjectives that describe groups of people.
  
• 5.8: The indefinite article may sometimes appear between an adjective and a noun
  

when using the comparative: as _ as.

• 7.5: Do not use the with individual lakes, mountains, islands, or canyons.
  
• 7.8: Use the when referring to nationalities that do not have a plural form.
  
• 8.1: Do not use an article with object-activity words.
  
• 8.9: Use the with parts of the body that have come into contact with an outside
  

object.

• 9.1: Use the with periods of time.
  
• 9.6: Do not use an article with nouns that are immediately followed by a number or
  

a letter.
• 9.9 Do not use the with ordinal numbers that refer to the names of awards or honors

(first prize, second prize, first place, second place, third place, honorable mention).

We will include examples of the rules. 

Results of Work In Ostrog 2012

PDF version for better viewing

Work group results of the final test, Rivne, 2011

We see great improvement in the work group's final test results.  See the notable measure of improvement.