【摘要】：從現(xiàn)今英語(yǔ)高考改革可見(jiàn),英語(yǔ)的重要性日益顯現(xiàn)。英語(yǔ)詞匯量的大小成為決定英語(yǔ)高考成敗的關(guān)鍵。本研究以“注意假說(shuō)”、“信息加工”與“投入量假說(shuō)”理論為基礎(chǔ),考察高中生詞匯記憶過(guò)程中,教師提供三種詞匯習(xí)得途徑對(duì)其二語(yǔ)詞匯習(xí)得的效果。本研究采用拉丁方設(shè)計(jì),避免了傳統(tǒng)的實(shí)驗(yàn)組、對(duì)照組分組對(duì)受試造成的不公平干預(yù),探討了三種教學(xué)途徑(FonF,Fon FS,FonM)對(duì)高中二語(yǔ)詞匯習(xí)得以及不同詞性詞匯(名詞、動(dòng)詞與形容詞)習(xí)得的即時(shí)與延時(shí)記憶效果。據(jù)此,本研究主要探究?jī)蓚�(gè)問(wèn)題:(1)三種教學(xué)途徑(FonF,FonFS,FonM)對(duì)于詞匯的學(xué)習(xí)與不同詞性詞匯(名詞、動(dòng)詞、形容詞)的短時(shí)記憶是否會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的影響?(2)三種教學(xué)途徑(FonF,FonFS,FonM)對(duì)于詞匯的記憶與不同詞性詞匯(名詞、動(dòng)詞、形容詞)的長(zhǎng)時(shí)記憶是否會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的影響?本實(shí)驗(yàn)從一所普通中學(xué)抽取了1個(gè)班(N=54),隨機(jī)分為三組實(shí)驗(yàn)樣本作為實(shí)驗(yàn)對(duì)象。三組受試(詞匯能力沒(méi)有顯著差異)不同先后采用FonF、Fon FS、FonM教學(xué)途徑。閱讀材料選自中學(xué)英語(yǔ)課本中一篇說(shuō)明文,文章長(zhǎng)度、難度及主題符合受試水平。實(shí)驗(yàn)前,受試于一張印有30個(gè)詞的單詞表中選出陌生詞匯,并經(jīng)過(guò)篩選,最終確定12個(gè)詞作為目標(biāo)詞(4個(gè)名詞,4個(gè)動(dòng)詞,4個(gè)形容詞)。FonF與FonM測(cè)試使用閱讀理解題,FonFS測(cè)試使用詞匯練習(xí)題。即時(shí)測(cè)試與延時(shí)測(cè)試均改編自Wesche和Paribakht(1997)的詞匯知識(shí)等級(jí)表,測(cè)試結(jié)果運(yùn)用SPSS 21.0軟件,采用描述性統(tǒng)計(jì)分析與One Way ANOVA分析了三組樣本共九個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù),用于回答研究問(wèn)題1與2。本實(shí)驗(yàn)分四步進(jìn)行。第一步:實(shí)驗(yàn)前兩周對(duì)各樣本組本學(xué)期期中考成績(jī)進(jìn)行描述統(tǒng)計(jì)分析。第二步:實(shí)驗(yàn)前為了避免各樣本組在英語(yǔ)詞匯量方面可能產(chǎn)生的差異,使用了Nation的詞匯量等級(jí)測(cè)試(Vocabulary Size Test)對(duì)學(xué)生進(jìn)行詞匯量測(cè)試,以確保各樣本組的英語(yǔ)詞匯量無(wú)顯著性差異。第三步:實(shí)驗(yàn)前一周選擇目標(biāo)詞。從30個(gè)詞匯中挑選12個(gè)單詞:4個(gè)名詞、4個(gè)動(dòng)詞與4個(gè)形容詞。第四步:4個(gè)詞一組,分別用于FonFS,FonF與FonM的設(shè)計(jì)。并于實(shí)驗(yàn)后立馬進(jìn)行即時(shí)測(cè)試。兩周后進(jìn)行延時(shí)測(cè)試。實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明:(1)三種教學(xué)途徑(FonF,FonFS,FonM)對(duì)于詞匯的學(xué)習(xí)均產(chǎn)生積極的影響。并對(duì)不同詞性詞匯(名詞、動(dòng)詞、形容詞)的學(xué)習(xí)效果會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的影響。(2)即時(shí)測(cè)試表明,FonFS對(duì)于詞匯記憶效果比FonF與FonM好。(3)延時(shí)測(cè)試表明,在記憶名詞與形容詞時(shí),FonF有更好的記憶效果。而在記憶動(dòng)詞時(shí),FonFS的記憶效果更好。(4)總體而言,無(wú)論使用何種教學(xué)途徑,名詞的記憶效果優(yōu)于動(dòng)詞與形容詞。動(dòng)詞的記憶效果最差。筆者根據(jù)以上實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)論提出詞匯教學(xué)應(yīng)該根據(jù)不同的教學(xué)目標(biāo)采用不同的教學(xué)途徑并且在記憶不同詞性時(shí),采用不同的教學(xué)途徑:記憶動(dòng)詞時(shí),應(yīng)該更加具體,采取FonFS。
[Abstract]:From the present English college entrance examination reform, the importance of English is increasingly apparent. The size of English vocabulary is the key to the success of college entrance examination. Based on the "attention hypothesis", "information processing" and "involvement load hypothesis", the present study investigates the effects of teachers' three ways of vocabulary acquisition on the second language vocabulary acquisition of senior high school students in the process of vocabulary memory. In this study, the Latin square design was used to avoid the traditional experimental group and the control group to interfere unfairly with the subjects. Three teaching approaches (FonFFFon FSU FonM) and different parts of speech vocabulary (nouns) were discussed. Verbs and adjectives) the immediate and delayed memory effects of acquisition. Accordingly, the present study mainly explores two problems: (1) the study of three teaching approaches (FonFFN, FonFSU, FonM) for vocabulary learning and different parts of speech vocabulary (nouns, verbs, verbs), Will the short-term memory of adjectives have different effects? (2) will the three teaching approaches (FonFwe FonFSU FonM) have different effects on vocabulary memory and on the long term memory of different parts of speech vocabulary (nouns, verbs, adjectives)? A class (NN54) was selected from a general middle school and randomly divided into three groups of experimental samples. The three groups (no significant difference in vocabulary competence) adopted FonFFon FSU FonM teaching approach in different order. The reading materials are selected from an essay in a middle school English textbook. The length, difficulty and subject of the article are in line with the subjects' level. Before the experiment, the subjects selected unfamiliar words from a list of 30 words and were screened. Finally, 12 words were chosen as target words (4 nouns, 4 verbs, 4 adjectives) .FonF and FonM test. Both the instant test and the delay test were adapted from the vocabulary knowledge level table of Wesche and Paribakht (1997). The test results were analyzed by using SPSS 21.0 software, descriptive statistical analysis and One Way ANOVA were used to analyze nine experimental data of three groups of samples. Used to answer questions 1 and 2. The experiment was carried out in four steps. Step 1: two weeks prior to the experiment, descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the results of each of the semesters. Step two: in order to avoid the possible differences in the vocabulary of each group, Nation's vocabulary rating test (Vocabulary Size Test) was used to test the vocabulary of the students in order to ensure that there was no significant difference in the vocabulary of each group. Step 3: choose the target word one week before the experiment. Choose 12 words from 30 words: 4 nouns, 4 verbs and 4 adjectives. Step 4: a group of four words, used in the design of the FonFS and FonM, respectively. The test was carried out immediately after the experiment. A delay test was conducted two weeks later. The experimental results show that: (1) the three teaching approaches (FonFN FonFSU FonM) have a positive effect on vocabulary learning. The learning effects of different parts of speech vocabulary (nouns, verbs, adjectives) are different. (2) the immediate test shows that the effect of FonF on vocabulary memory is better than that of FonF and FonM. When memorizing nouns and adjectives, FonF has better memory effects. But the memory effect of FonFS is better when the verb is memorized. (4) in general, the memory effect of noun is better than that of verb and adjective, no matter what teaching method is used. Verbs have the worst effect of memory. According to the above conclusions, the author puts forward that vocabulary teaching should adopt different teaching approaches according to different teaching objectives and different teaching approaches when memorizing different parts of speech: when memorizing verbs, it should be more specific and adopt FonFS.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：G633.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孔繁霞;王歆;;任務(wù)模式與類(lèi)型對(duì)詞匯附帶習(xí)得的影響研究[J];外語(yǔ)界;2014年06期

2 劉丹丹;吳艷;;顯性/隱性強(qiáng)化對(duì)二語(yǔ)詞匯和語(yǔ)法習(xí)得的影響研究[J];外語(yǔ)界;2014年05期

3 趙蔚;陳永捷;陸偉忠;;近十年中外二語(yǔ)詞匯習(xí)得研究比較——基于14種語(yǔ)言類(lèi)期刊的比較分析(2004-2013)[J];外語(yǔ)界;2014年04期

4 劉凌;秦曉晴;;詞匯呈現(xiàn)方式對(duì)英語(yǔ)詞匯學(xué)習(xí)影響的實(shí)證研究[J];外語(yǔ)界;2014年02期

5 苗麗霞;;第二語(yǔ)言詞匯附帶習(xí)得研究30年述評(píng)[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2014年01期

6 彭文婷;邱野;;“focus on form”的課堂教學(xué)策略研究綜述[J];淮海工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年08期

7 吳建設(shè);郎建國(guó);伏力;陳靜;;基于閱讀強(qiáng)化方式的二語(yǔ)詞匯習(xí)得研究[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2010年03期

8 趙龍武;楊杰;;詞匯附帶習(xí)得及其相應(yīng)詞匯知識(shí)儲(chǔ)備——第二語(yǔ)言詞匯附帶習(xí)得研究之一[J];外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊;2010年03期

9 王明梅;;國(guó)外“語(yǔ)言形式教學(xué)”實(shí)證研究述評(píng)——從其有效度之影響因素角度[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)師;2010年01期

10 葛現(xiàn)茹;;“形式焦點(diǎn)式”語(yǔ)言教學(xué):形式與意義的整合[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 馮步青;詞匯呈現(xiàn)方式對(duì)高中生英語(yǔ)詞匯習(xí)得效果影響的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[D];廣州大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：2169838