本文選題：“投入量假設(shè)” + “預(yù)設(shè)投入量”��； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：“投入量假設(shè)”由LauferHulstijn于2001年提出,至今已逾十年。十年間,該假設(shè)引起界內(nèi)廣泛關(guān)注,主要原因在于它采用“投入量”的概念將學(xué)習(xí)者的認(rèn)知努力量化,使研究者有可能通過實(shí)證研究揭示不同閱讀任務(wù)對(duì)詞匯習(xí)得的影響。假設(shè)認(rèn)為,一項(xiàng)閱讀任務(wù)引發(fā)的投入量越高,對(duì)詞匯學(xué)習(xí)的促進(jìn)作用越好。研究者們就此開展了許多實(shí)驗(yàn),試圖證實(shí)這一假說(shuō),然而,由于研究設(shè)計(jì)的差異和“投入量假設(shè)”本身缺陷的綜合作用,迄今仍無(wú)統(tǒng)一結(jié)論。因此,本文旨在探究由閱讀任務(wù)引發(fā)的“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”、學(xué)習(xí)者完成任務(wù)時(shí)的“實(shí)際投入量”以及二語(yǔ)詞匯學(xué)習(xí)結(jié)果三者之間的關(guān)系,從而找出“投入量假設(shè)”無(wú)法得到驗(yàn)證的根本原因。具體研究問題如下：(1)“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”與“實(shí)際投入量”一致嗎?(2)“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”能有效預(yù)測(cè)詞匯習(xí)得結(jié)果嗎?(3)“實(shí)際投入量”能有效預(yù)測(cè)詞匯習(xí)得結(jié)果嗎? 研究結(jié)果表明：(1)“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”與“實(shí)際投入量”不一致,前者顯著高于后者,尤其表現(xiàn)在“投入量”認(rèn)知維度的兩個(gè)因素,即“搜索”和“評(píng)價(jià)”上；(2)“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”不能有效預(yù)測(cè)詞匯習(xí)得結(jié)果,無(wú)論在即時(shí)詞匯測(cè)試還是延時(shí)詞匯測(cè)試中,完成具有較高“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”閱讀任務(wù)的受試并不一定比完成具有較低“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”閱讀任務(wù)的受試表現(xiàn)更好；(3)“實(shí)際投入量”與詞匯習(xí)得結(jié)果呈顯著正相關(guān),學(xué)習(xí)者在閱讀任務(wù)中的實(shí)際投入量越高,其詞匯初始習(xí)得效果越好,但這種優(yōu)勢(shì)并不能延續(xù)到延時(shí)后測(cè)中。本研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)于教學(xué)有某些啟示意義。首先,由于學(xué)習(xí)者在閱讀任務(wù)中投入越多、詞匯習(xí)得效果越好,有必要設(shè)計(jì)具有高投入量的閱讀任務(wù),引發(fā)其更多的投入,以促進(jìn)重要詞匯的習(xí)得。其次,在設(shè)計(jì)任務(wù)的基礎(chǔ)上,教師還應(yīng)對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)者的內(nèi)部認(rèn)知活動(dòng)多加關(guān)注,使得“預(yù)設(shè)投入量”盡可能多地實(shí)現(xiàn)。此外,對(duì)新習(xí)得詞匯進(jìn)行經(jīng)常性復(fù)習(xí)對(duì)其長(zhǎng)久保持有重要作用。
[Abstract]:The input load hypothesis was proposed by LauferHulstijn in 2001. It has been more than ten years. During the past ten years, the hypothesis has attracted wide attention, mainly because it uses the concept of "involvement load" to quantify learners' cognitive efforts, which makes it possible for researchers to reveal the impact of different reading tasks on vocabulary acquisition through empirical research. Suppose that the higher the amount of input caused by a reading task, the better the promotion of vocabulary learning. Many experiments have been carried out to confirm this hypothesis. However, due to the differences in design and the combined effect of the defects of the "input load hypothesis" itself, there is still no uniform conclusion. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the "presupposition input" induced by reading tasks, the "actual involvement load" when learners complete the tasks and the results of second language vocabulary learning. Thus, we can find out the fundamental reason why the input load hypothesis can not be verified. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) is "presupposition involvement load" consistent with "actual involvement load"? (2) can "presupposition involvement load" effectively predict vocabulary acquisition results? (3) can "actual involvement load" effectively predict vocabulary acquisition results? The results show that the "presupposition involvement load" is not consistent with the "actual involvement load", and the former is significantly higher than the latter, especially the two factors in the cognitive dimension of "involvement load". In other words, "search" and "evaluation" can not effectively predict the result of vocabulary acquisition, whether in the immediate vocabulary test or in the delayed vocabulary test. (3) there was no significant positive correlation between the "actual involvement load" and the vocabulary acquisition results in the subjects who completed the reading tasks with higher presupposition involvement load than those who completed the reading tasks with the lower presupposition involvement load. (3) there was a significant positive correlation between the actual involvement load and the vocabulary acquisition results of the subjects who completed the reading tasks with a higher presupposition involvement load. The higher the actual involvement load in the reading task, the better the initial vocabulary acquisition effect, but this advantage can not be extended to the delayed post-test. The findings of this study have some implications for teaching. First of all, because the learners invest more in reading tasks, the better the vocabulary acquisition effect is, it is necessary to design the reading tasks with high involvement load to stimulate their more investment in order to promote the acquisition of important vocabulary. Secondly, on the basis of designing tasks, teachers should pay more attention to the learners' internal cognitive activities so as to realize as much as possible. In addition, regular review of newly acquired vocabulary plays an important role in maintaining it for a long time.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：H09

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 梁端俊;;L2/FL閱讀中詞匯附帶習(xí)得研究綜觀[J];國(guó)外外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2005年04期

2 周浩;;基于投入量假設(shè)的一項(xiàng)實(shí)證性研究[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2008年01期

3 李燕;;不同投入量的任務(wù)對(duì)產(chǎn)出性詞匯知識(shí)附帶習(xí)得的作用[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2008年02期

4 董燕萍,周彩慶;多義熟詞的理解性和產(chǎn)出性詞匯知識(shí)的習(xí)得[J];解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年06期

5 顧琦一;宋明珠;;任務(wù)預(yù)設(shè)投入量與詞匯習(xí)得策略[J];解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

6 武衛(wèi),許洪;附帶性學(xué)習(xí)環(huán)境中基于語(yǔ)篇的不同任務(wù)對(duì)詞匯習(xí)得產(chǎn)生的影響[J];山東外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2004年06期

7 蓋淑華;英語(yǔ)專業(yè)學(xué)生詞匯附帶習(xí)得實(shí)證研究[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2003年04期

8 段士平 ,嚴(yán)辰松;多項(xiàng)選擇注釋對(duì)英語(yǔ)詞匯附帶習(xí)得的作用[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2004年03期

9 吳建設(shè);郎建國(guó);黨群;;詞匯附帶習(xí)得與“投入量假設(shè)”[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2007年05期

10 吳旭東;;學(xué)習(xí)任務(wù)能影響詞匯附帶習(xí)得嗎?——“投入量假設(shè)”再探[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2010年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1820361