- 學位論文
註解對於台灣學生以學習英語為外語者在多媒體環境下非刻意英語字彙學習成效之研究
The Effect of Glosses on Incidental Vocabulary Learning for Taiwanese EFL Learners in a Multimedia Context
摘要
本研究探討在第一語言註解(中文解釋)、第二語言註解(英文解釋)以及沒有註解(無中文解釋、無英文解釋)閱讀情況下對於非刻意英語字彙學習短期記憶與四週後的長期記憶的影響，並探討學習者的英文程度是否會影響其結果。 本研究對象來自北台灣某大學三個理工學院的班級，總共136位的大一學生，研究者根據研究對象的學測英文成績把他們分成高程度組與低程度組，並且研究者把他們分為六組: 高程度中文註解組、低程度中文註解組、高程度英文註解組、低程度英文註解組、高程度沒有註解組以及低程度沒有註解組，研究對象每人在Moodle平台在第一語言註解、第二語言註解或沒有註解的閱讀情況下共閱讀兩篇文章，每次閱讀完一篇文章，立即進行單字測驗(包含填空題、選擇題與配合題)，四個禮拜後進行一樣的單字測驗。 透過量化分析，結果顯示在短期記憶的中文註解以及英文註解比沒有註解有顯著幫助並且中文註解與英文註解之間沒有顯著差別，在四週後的單字測驗中，中文註解組、英文註解組與沒有註解組之間沒有顯著差別但三組的單字量比起四週前都有顯著的下降，本次結果也顯示高程度中文註解組、低程度中文註解組、高程度英文註解組以及低程度英文註解組的單字量比起四週前都有顯著的差別但高程度沒有註解組以及低程度沒有註解組沒有顯著的下降。本研究建議在進行閱讀活動時，教師可以提供中文註解或是英文註解給學生，另外學生可以選擇有註解的閱讀資料作為適當的閱讀教材因為註解幫助學生的非刻意英語字彙學習在短期記憶中獲得更多的單字量，然而註解對於非刻意英語字彙學習在長期記憶是沒有顯著幫助，所以老師與學生需要尋求更好的學習策略去增進學生的英文能力。
並列摘要
The study aimed to investigate the effect of different gloss types- L1 gloss (Chinese equivalent), L2 gloss (English explanation), and no-gloss (No Chinese equivalent and no English explanation) on incidental vocabulary learning in short-term retention and a four-week long-term retention. Furthermore, the researcher examined whether the leaners’ proficiency would affect these outcomes. The participants were one hundred and thirty-six freshmen from three classes of Science and Engineering majors in one of the universities in Northern Taiwan. Based on their English scores of General Scholastic Ability Test, the participants were divided into high level and low level groups. They were categorized into six groups: L1 gloss of high level group, L1 gloss of low level group, L2 gloss of high level group, L2 gloss of low level group, no gloss of high level group and no gloss of low level group. All the participants read two articles with L1 gloss, L2 gloss or no gloss on Moodle platform and after reading they immediately took a vocabulary test (including production test, recognition test and cloze test). After four weeks, they took exactly the same vocabulary tests. Through a quantitative analysis, the results show that L1 gloss and L2 gloss were more effective than no gloss and there was no difference between L1 gloss and L2 gloss in the incidental vocabulary learning in the short-term retention. The vocabulary gain of L1 gloss, L2 gloss and no gloss dropped dramatically after four weeks of the last treatment; moreover, no significant difference was detected among these three groups in the long-term retention. The results also show that L1 gloss of high level, L1 gloss of low level groups, L2 gloss of high level and L2 gloss of low level groups regressed significantly in long-term retention while no gloss of high level and low level groups did not demonstrate a significant regression. These findings suggest that teachers can provide L1 or L2 glosses when giving reading tasks to students and language learners can choose reading materials with glosses as appropriate materials since L1 gloss and L2 gloss are effective and learners can gain more with the aid of glosses on short term incidental vocabulary learning. However, for long-term vocabulary learning and retention, glosses alone apparently are far from adequate. Teachers as well as learners need to work on better strategies than gloss in order to facilitate deeper learning.