不同任务类型对词汇附带学习的影响

发布时间：2018-05-08 08:16

本文选题：词汇附带学习 + 任务类型　；参考：《苏州大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：词汇是语言的核心部分，词汇研究也一直是二语习得研究的焦点，而词汇附带学习又是词汇研究中的热点。多年以来，研究者花费了大量的努力，采用不同的方式去研究不同条件下的词汇附带学习。其中，有一些研究试图比较不同类型任务的有效性以及探索其后蕴藏的道理。2001年，Hulstijn和Laufer提出了投入量假设这一概念来说明这个问题。他们认为，词汇习得的好坏取决于学习词汇时学习者的投入量。投入量越高，学习效果越好，任务也就越有效。还有一些研究旨在比较输入型任务和输出型任务的效用，从而强调输出在二语习得中的重要作用。本研究正是基于上述研究，其主要目的是比较不同类型的任务对词汇学习的影响，特别是对不同成绩学习者的影响。本研究主要是以定量研究为主，采用实验的方式。研究中共涉及三个任务，分别是只阅读，填空和写小结。相对应的受试有三个组，第一个为控制组，后两个为实验组。受试来自江苏某高校一年级三个自然班，共119名。实验中，三个不同班级的受试被要求完成三个不同的任务，通过一次前测和两次后测来收集数据，最后用SPSS进行分析。在分析时，三组受试又被进一步分成了六个小组（三个低分组和三个高分组）进行比较，从而确定不同的任务对不同成绩学习者的影响。实验结果将从投入量假设和输出假设两个角度进行讨论。最后还对受试进行了简单的采访，其结果也将予以讨论。本研究的主要发现有：（1）不同的任务对词汇附带学习有不同的影响。在所涉及的三个任务中，只阅读是最低效的，而写小结是最有效的，填空介于两者之间。从投入量假设的角度来讲，三个任务涉及不同的投入量。实验结果证明投入量最低的任务效果最差，，最高的任务效果最好。从输出假设的角度来讲，只阅读可以被看为是输入型任务，写小结是输出型任务。结果显示输出型任务比输入型任务更加有效。（2）不同任务对不同学生有不同的影响。在每个任务组内，高分组比低分组获益更多。跨组来看，学生受到的影响不尽相同。低分组显然要比高分组受到不同任务的影响小。相对于低分组，高分组从输出型任务中获益更多。尽管研究设计还有很多缺陷，但研究发现却很有启示。本研究不仅对词汇教学，而且对词汇练习设计，教材编写都会有所帮助。
[Abstract]:Vocabulary is the core of language, vocabulary research has been the focus of second language acquisition, and incidental vocabulary learning is a hot topic in vocabulary research. Over the years, researchers have made great efforts to study incidental vocabulary learning under different conditions in different ways. Among them, some studies try to compare the effectiveness of different types of tasks and explore the underlying truth. In 2001, Hulstijn and Laufer proposed the concept of involvement load hypothesis to illustrate this problem. They believe that the quality of vocabulary acquisition depends on learners' involvement in vocabulary learning. The higher the input, the better the learning effect and the more effective the task. Other studies aim at comparing the utility of input and output tasks, thus emphasizing the important role of output in second language acquisition. The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of different types of tasks on vocabulary learning, especially on learners with different achievement. This study is based on quantitative research, using experimental methods. The study involved three tasks: reading only, filling in the blanks, and writing summaries. There were three groups, the first was control group and the latter two were experimental group. Participants from a university in Jiangsu, three natural classes, a total of 119. In the experiment, the subjects of three different classes were asked to complete three different tasks. The data were collected by one pre-test and two post-tests. Finally, the data were analyzed by SPSS. In the analysis, the three groups were further divided into six groups (three low groups and three high score groups) to determine the impact of different tasks on different achievement learners. The experimental results will be discussed from two aspects: the input load hypothesis and the output hypothesis. Finally, the participants were interviewed briefly, and the results will also be discussed. The main findings of this study are: (1) different tasks have different effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Of the three tasks involved, reading only is the least efficient, and writing a summary is the most effective, and filling in the blanks is somewhere between the two. From the perspective of input load hypothesis, three tasks involve different input loads. The experimental results show that the task with the lowest involvement load is the worst and the task with the highest input is the best. From the point of view of output hypothesis, reading only can be regarded as an input task, and writing a summary is an output task. The results show that the output task is more effective than the input task. Within each task group, higher scores benefit more than low groups. Across groups, students are affected differently. The low group was obviously less affected by different tasks than the high score group. High-score groups benefit more from outputted tasks than from low-group groups. Although there are still many flaws in the research design, the findings are instructive. This study is helpful not only to vocabulary teaching, but also to the design of vocabulary exercises and the compilation of teaching materials.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H09

【相似文献】