none｜國立中央大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	朱芷嫻 Chih-Hsien Chu
論文名稱：	Effects of Reading the Same Story First in L1 Then in L2 on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning
指導教授：	衛友賢 David Wible
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	文學院 - 學習與教學研究所 Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction
論文出版年：	2020
畢業學年度：	108
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	105
中文關鍵詞：	第二語言習得、非刻意單字學習、背景知識、詞彙閾值
外文關鍵詞：	second language learning, incidental vocabulary learning, background knowledge, lexical threshold
相關次數：	點閱：11 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究探討第二語言閱讀者的讀本背景知識對他們從閱讀該讀本中非刻意學習的詞彙量之影響。過去已有研究者提出被廣泛引用的詞彙閾值作為非刻意單字學習的前提條件 (Laufer 1989, 2010; Nation 1985)。本研究旨在探討另一因素的可能性，即文章的背景知識，可以使閱讀者在沒有滿足詞彙閾值的狀況下也能非刻意的學習單字。背景知識這個變數被設計為在閱讀第二外語(英文) 的文章之前，先閱讀其母語(中文)的版本。受試者為台灣北部大學大一英文班的學生，其母語皆為中文。在閱讀同一個第二外語(英文)短篇故事之前，實驗組先閱讀了該故事的母語(中文)版，而對照組手則先閱讀了一個無關的母語(中文)故事。閱讀任務的結果顯示，實驗組及對照組在閱讀任務中的單字學習表現有顯著差異，實驗組藉由閱讀而非刻意學習到的單字比對照組多很多，且此顯著差異不論是在已滿足詞彙閾值的受試者和未達到詞彙閾值的受試者上均成立。事實上，實驗組中詞彙覆蓋率較差的受試者的非刻意單字學習表現比對照組中高詞彙覆蓋率的受試者中要好。研究結果指出，詞彙閾值對於是否能成功達到非刻意單字學習並不是一個必要的決定性因素。閱讀者對於文本的背景知識也是一個成功的關鍵。

This thesis is an investigation of the effects of L2 readers’ background knowledge of a reading passage on how much vocabulary they learn incidentally from reading that passage. Previous researchers have proposed a widely cited lexical threshold needed as a prerequisite for learning vocabulary incidentally (Laufer 1989, 2010; Nation 1985). This thesis aims to investigate the possibility that another factor, background knowledge of the passage, can enable readers to learn vocabulary incidentally without meeting the lexical threshold. The variable of background knowledge was operationalized as reading an L1 (Chinese) version of the passage before reading it in L2 (English). Subjects were students from a university Freshman English class in northern Taiwan whose reading L1 was Chinese. Before reading the same English short story, the Experimental Group read the L1 version of the story first whereas the Control Group read an unrelated L1 story first instead. The results of the reading tasks show significant differences between the Experimental and Control Groups. The Experimental Group learned significantly more words incidentally from reading the story than the Control Group. This difference held both for participants who met a threshold of known words in the reading passage as well as those who did not meet the threshold. In fact, participants with poor lexical coverage in the Experimental Group showed greater incidental vocabulary learning gains than participants with strong lexical coverage in the Control Group. The findings suggest that the lexical threshold might not be necessary to determine the success of learning vocabulary incidentally through reading. Readers’ background knowledge of the text is also a key to success.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1
1.1 Background and Motivation.....................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose.....................................................................................................................3
1.3 Research Questions..................................................................................................4
1.4 Organization of the Thesis………………………………………………………...5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................6 2.1 Second Language Learning......................................................................................6
2.2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Intentional Vocabulary Learning....................7
2.3 Learning Vocabulary by Extensive Reading............................................................8
2.4 Background Knowledge.........................................................................................10
2.5 Summary................................................................................................................ 15

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................18
3.1 Overview of Methods.............................................................................................18
3.2 Materials.................................................................................................................20
3.3 Pilot Study..............................................................................................................21
3.4 The Formal Experiment.........................................................................................22
3.4.1 Participants......................................................................................................22
3.4.2 Reading Tasks..................................................................................................23
3.4.3 The Delayed Post-test......................................................................................27
3.5 Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................27
3.5.1 Data Collection................................................................................................27
3.5.2 Data Analysis...................................................................................................28

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................31
4.1 Results………………………………....................................................................31
4.2 Discussion..............................................................................................................39
4.2.1 Comparing Control and Experimental Group Results....................................39
4.2.2 Discussion of the 95~98% Lexical Threshold................................................40

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION..............................................................................52
5.1 Major Findings.......................................................................................................52
5.2 Pedagogical Implications.......................................................................................53
5.3 Limitations of the Study.........................................................................................54
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research............................................................................56

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................58
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................61
Appendix A: “The Fountain of Fair Fortune” (English version).................................62
Appendix B: “The Fountain of Fair Fortune” (Chinese version).................................70
Appendix C: “Babbitty Rabbitty and her Cackling Stump” (Chinese version)...........79
Appendix D: Chinese instructions for the reading tasks..............................................88
Appendix E: The detail data of all words circled as unknown……………………….89


                                

林靜華（譯）（民97 ）。吟遊詩人皮陀故事集（原作者：Rowling, J. K.）。台北市：皇冠。（原著出版年：2008）
Adams, M., & Bruce, B. (1982). Background knowledge and reading comprehension. Reader Meets Author: Bridging the gap, 2-25.
Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 420-436.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573.
Chen, H., & Graves, M. F. (1995, Winter). Effects of Previewing and Providing Background Knowledge on Taiwanese College Students’ Comprehension of American Short Stories. TESOL Quarterly, 29(4), 663-686.
De Saussure, F. (2011). Course in general linguistics. Columbia University Press.
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 277-294.
Gass, S. (1999). Discussion: Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 319-333.
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 767-787.
Johnson, P. (1982, December). Effects on Reading Comprehension of Building Background Knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4). 503-516.
Kyongho, H., & Nation, P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabulary learning through reading newspapers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 6(1), 323-335.
Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical Threshold Revisited: Lexical Text Coverage, Learners' Vocabulary Size and Reading Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30.
Lipson, M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3), 243-261.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 233-253.
Na, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors Affecting Guessing Vocabulary in. Context. RELC Journal, 16(1), 33–42.
Rowling, J. K. (2008). The tales of Beedle the Bard. London: Children's High Level Group.
Stahl, S. A., Jacobson, M. G., Davis, C. E., & Davis, R. L. (1989, Winter). Prior Knowledge and Difficult Vocabulary in the Comprehension of Unfamiliar Text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 27-43.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 360-407.
Tierney, R. J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1980). Research on Teaching Reading Comprehension. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Wible, D (2005). Language Learning and Language Technology: Toward Foundations for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Taipei: Crane

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文