閱讀與寫作對高中生非刻意單字學習影響之研究

The Effects of Input and Output Tasks on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

周厚孜(Hou-Tzu Chou)

指導教授 ： John Truscott

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/外國語文學系/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6843/NTHU.2006.00091

摘要

就非刻意字彙學習對母語和外語學習者而言，閱讀常被認為是單字學習的重要來源。除了單字習得外，只要閱讀內容是可理解，學習者也會加強其文法和改善四項語言技能：聽、說、讀、寫。因此，透過閱讀，學習者也應能獲得「認識」及「應用」的字彙。然而，一些研究者認為除了閱讀之外，語言輸出，例如說或寫，在語言學習過程中也扮演部份角色。一些研究發現學習者會因為單字練習活動的不同而導致「認識」和「應用」字彙發展不對稱。這類研究大部份檢視單字習得順序對字彙學習的影響，及探討學習順序從母語到外語或從外語到母語對單字習得的差異。然而此類研究著重在單字練習，因此不能代表非刻意單字學習的成果。除此之外，大多數這類研究的測驗以翻譯為主，因此很難測出研究對象使用單字的能力。由於研究結果的不一致性及缺乏「應用」字彙的測驗，本實驗因此著重「輸入」和「輸出」活動對非刻意單字學習所造成的影響。
此研究目的在探討兩個研究主題：（一）閱讀（輸入）和寫作（輸出）對「認識」及「應用」單字的立即學習成效，（二）閱讀（輸入）和寫作（輸出）對「認識」及「應用」單字的長期學習成效。為了達到此研究目的，在本實驗中，研究對象分成兩組，一組從事「輸入」練習而另一組強調「輸出」活動。「輸入」練習包含閱讀、字義配對、句子英翻中和閱讀測驗。這些練習完全不需要學習者運用單字在說話及寫作上。對於「輸出」組，主要練習在閱讀及寫作上，研究對象在讀完一篇文章後要用相關字彙寫一篇作文。本實驗有50個字彙而實驗持續八週。67位高中部一年級的學生參與本實驗，雖然他們分佈在2班，為了要隨機分配練習活動，在同一個班級，一半的學生分到「輸入」組，另一半則在「輸出」組。本實驗含有一個前測、五個後測及一個總後測。「認識」單字測驗改編自「字彙知識等級」(Paribakht & Wesche, 1996) 及英翻中。「應用」單字則由造句及中翻英所測量。
本研究主要有三個發現：（一）由於資料分析結果顯示2組學生表現在五個後測及一個總後測中並沒有顯著差異。因此，「認識」和「應用」單字學習並不會受到練習活動的不同而產生學習差異，（二）實驗結果顯示「認識」單字較「應用」單字容易保留，（三）「輸出」活動較「輸入」活動要耗費時間。因此教師在教學上可提供較多輸入練習，如閱讀，因為閱讀不只幫助單字習得，也發展讀寫能力。造句雖然提供學習者機會運用字彙，但並沒有使他們對字彙的用法有更深的體會。對於未來研究方向，更多的研究對象及單字應列入實驗，如此，才能呈現練習活動對單字學習上更完整的成效。

關鍵字

專注量假說 ； 認識字彙 ； 應用字彙 ； 字彙知識等級 ； 可理解輸入 ； 可理解輸出

並列摘要

In terms of incidental vocabulary learning, reading is commonly regarded as the major source of vocabulary acquisition for both L1 and L2 learners. Extensive reading then is encouraged as a means of enhancing vocabulary knowledge. Apart from the advantage of vocabulary acquisition, as long as the reading is comprehensible, the learners will also acquire knowledge of grammar and improvement of the four skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing (Krashen, 1989; Cho & Krashen, 1994). Hence, it is suggested that through reading, learners can gain both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Nevertheless, some researchers have argued that reading cannot be the only source of language acquisition; output, such as speaking and writing, should also play some role in the language learning process (Swain, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).
Some studies have found an asymmetric processing of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge, based on the types of tasks done by learners. Most of these studies investigated the results of vocabulary gains in view of the learning order of the language, either from L1 to L2 order or from L2 to L1 order. These kinds of tasks did not represent incidental vocabulary acquisition since the main goal of the tasks was vocabulary learning. In addition, most of the instruments used in the studies were translation only. Owing to the inconsistencies in the empirical results and the lack of measurement of productive vocabulary knowledge, this study, therefore, was conducted to explore the effects of input and output tasks on incidental vocabulary acquisition.
There were two groups in this study, one doing only the input task and the other emphasizing output. The input task included reading, word-definition matching, translation, and reading comprehension questions. These exercises did not require learners to produce the English words at all. For the output group, the exercises were reading and compositions. After reading an article, learners needed to write compositions using all the target words. There were 50 target words and the treatments lasted 8 weeks. Sixty-seven EFL first year senior high school students from two classes were recruited to participate in the study. In order to randomly assign the tasks, half the students in each class were in the input task group and the other half in the output task group. A pretest, five immediate and delayed posttests, and final receptive and productive posttests were used as the instruments in this study. Receptive vocabulary knowledge was measured by an adaptation of the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996) and English-Chinese translation. The measures for productive knowledge were sentence writing and Chinese-English translation. The writing tests were scored by two raters, one a Chinese English teacher and the other a native English speaker.
Data analysis yielded the following results. First, there was no significant difference in scores between the input and output task groups on immediate or delayed posttests. Hence, this study suggests that the retention of receptive and productive vocabulary is not greatly affected by the types of tasks used and that both input and output tasks help learners acquire not only receptive vocabulary knowledge but also productive knowledge. Therefore, teaching implications are that teachers should provide more reading tasks because reading can benefit not only vocabulary acquisition but also the development of literacy. Sentence writing did provide learners opportunities to use the words in a productive way, but it did not lead them to the awareness of the proper use of the words. Regarding directions for future research, more subjects and target words should be included in the experiment and the rating scale for productive vocabulary tests should be refined.

並列關鍵字

Involvement Load Hypothesis ； Receptive vocabulary ； Productive vocabulay ； Vocabulary Knowledge Scale ； Comprehensible input ； Comprehensible output

參考文獻

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: Freeman.

Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.

Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Barrow, J., Nakashimi, Y., & Ishino, H. (1999). Assessing Japanese college students’ vocabulary knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey. System, 37, 662-667.

Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.