字彙解釋對第二語言學習者於閱讀理解及字彙學習的影響

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	鄭文茜 Wen-Chien Cheng
論文名稱：	字彙解釋對第二語言學習者於閱讀理解及字彙學習的影響 Effects of Glosses on EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Learning
指導教授：	謝育芬 Yu-Fen Hsieh
口試委員:	鄧慧君 Huei-Chun Teng 周昭廷 Chao-Ting Chou
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 應用外語系 Department of Applied Foreign Languages
論文出版年：	2019
畢業學年度：	107
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	95
中文關鍵詞：	字彙解釋、字彙解釋型態、閱讀理解、字彙學習、精熟程度
外文關鍵詞：	glosses, gloss types, reading comprehension, vocabulary learning, proficiency levels
相關次數：	點閱：303 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

過往文獻顯示字彙解釋對學習者於閱讀理解及字彙學習上有其效力，然而研究結果並無一致。為進一步理解字彙解釋的效用，本研究旨在探討不同型態的字彙解釋（L1 vs. L2）對於學習者於閱讀理解及字彙學習整體上有何差異，亦探討字彙解釋的型態對不同程度的學習者產生的影響是否有顯著差異。研究對象為146名臺灣國中生，他們被隨機區分為L1和L2兩個組別，為檢視字彙解釋的型態對不同程度學習者造成的影響，研究對象被更進一步區分為高、中、低程度三個組別。他們需要閱讀有L1字彙解釋或L2字彙解釋的兩篇文章並回答相關閱讀理解題，接著完成單字測驗，並在所有測驗結束後，回答問卷相關問題及表達他們對於字彙解釋的偏好。
獨立樣本t檢定及二因子變異數分析顯示字彙解釋的型態（L1 vs. L2）對於學習者的閱讀理解及字彙學習的影響確實有顯著差異。研究結果顯示L1和L2字彙解釋的影響對於高程度或低程度學習者的閱讀理解而言並無明顯差異（p> .05），然而對於高或低程度學習者的字彙學習而言則有顯著差異（L1 > L2）。大多數的學習者喜歡閱讀時能伴有字彙解釋，特別是L1的字彙解釋型態。本研究最後亦探討了此研究的教育意義及對未來研究的建議。

Previous literature had confirmed the effects of glosses on learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. However, the findings were inconsistent. To fill the gap, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of glosses (L1 vs. L2) on learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning as a whole and in terms of their different proficiency levels. Participants were 146 students in a junior high school in Taiwan. They were randomly divided into two groups – L1 and L2 groups. In order to examine the effects of glosses on learners’ of different proficiency levels, participants were further divided into high, mid, and low-proficiency groups. They needed to read two articles with either L1 glosses or L2 glosses and answered related comprehension questions. Following the comprehension tests were vocabulary tests which included production tests and recognition ones. After all the tests, participants were given a questionnaire to express their preference for glosses.
An independent samples t-test and a two-way ANOVA reported that glosses (L1 vs. L2) had significantly different effects on learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. As for learners in the high-proficiency group or the low-proficiency group, findings indicated that L1 and L2 glosses did not reveal significantly different effects (p> .05) on their reading comprehension. However, the effects of glosses (L1 vs. L2) revealed significant differences on their vocabulary learning (L1> L2). Most learners preferred having glosses, especially L1 glosses. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for future studies were also discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (Chinese).....    i
ABSTRACT (English).....    ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......    iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS......    v
LIST OF TABLES.....ix
LIST OF FIGURES......xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION......    1
Background and Motivation......    1
Definition of Terms.....4
Significance of the Study......    4
Research Questions and Hypotheses of the Study.....4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW.....6
Functions of Glosses.....6
Theoretical Background.....7
The Revised Hierarchical Model    7
Glosses and Reading Comprehension    11
Glosses and Vocabulary Learning    15
Summary    19
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY    25
Participants    25
Material    26
Articles    26
Instruments    27
Reading Comprehension Test    27
Vocabulary Test    27
Questionnaire    28
Procedures    29
Data Analysis    32
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS    36
Research Question 1: Does the language of glosses (L1 vs. L2) have effects
on EFL junior high school learners’ reading comprehension?    36
Research Question 2: Does the language of glosses (L1 vs. L2) have effects
on EFL junior high school learners’ vocabulary learning?    37
Production Tests    37
Recognition Tests    38
Research Question 3: Does the effectiveness of glosses (L1 vs. L2) for EFL reading comprehension differ in terms of learners’ different proficiency
levels?    39
Research Question 4: Does the effectiveness of glosses (L1 vs. L2) for EFL vocabulary learning differ in terms of learners’ different proficiency
levels?    42
Production Tests    42
Recognition Tests    45
Research Question 5: Do learners prefer having glosses when they read? If
they do, what is their preference (L1 or L2 glosses)?    48
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION    51
Effects of Glosses (L1 vs. L2) on Learners’ Reading Comprehension as a
Whole    51
Effects of Glosses (L1 vs. L2) on Learners’ Vocabulary Learning as a
Whole    52
Effects of Glosses (L1 vs. L2) on Learners’ Reading Comprehension in Terms
of Their Different Proficiency Levels    53
Effects of Glosses (L1 vs. L2) on Learners’ Vocabulary Learning in Terms of Their Different Proficiency Levels    54
Learners’ Preference for Glosses    56

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION    59
Summary of the Present Study    59
Pedagogical Implications    60
Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research    61
REFERENCES    64
APPENDIX A    68
APPENDIX B    70
APPENDIX C    72
APPENDIX D    74
APPENDIX E    76
APPENDIX F    78
APPENDIX G    80
 


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of the Main Findings from Previous Research    19
Table 2 Methods of Data Analysis    34
Table 3 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of Scores on Reading Comprehension
Tests    37
Table 4 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of Scores on Production Tests    38
Table 5 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of Scores on Recognition Tests    39
Table 6 Descriptive Statistics Scores on Reading Comprehension in Terms of
Learners’ Different Proficiency Levels    40
Table 7 Two-way ANOVA Analysis of Scores on Reading Comprehension    41
Table 8 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of High-proficiency Learners’ Scores
on Reading Comprehension Tests    42
Table 9 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of Low-proficiency Learners’ Scores
on Reading Comprehension Tests    42
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics Scores on Production Tests in Terms of Learners’
Different Proficiency Levels    43
Table 11 Two-way ANOVA Analysis of Scores on Production Tests    44
Table 12 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of High-proficiency Learners’ Scores
on Production Tests    44
Table 13 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of Low-proficiency Learners’ Scores
on Production Tests    45
Table 14 Descriptive Statistics Scores on Recognition Tests in Terms of Learners’
Different Proficiency Levels    46
Table 15 Two-way ANOVA Analysis of Scores on Recognition Tests    46
Table 16 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of High-proficiency Learners’ Scores
on Recognition Tests    47
Table 17 Independent Samples T-test Analysis of Low-proficiency Learners’ Scores
on Recognition Tests    47



LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The Word Association Model    8
Figure 2 The Concept Mediation Model    9
Figure 3 The Revised Hierarchical Model    10
Figure 4 Glossary Provided in a Senior High School Textbook    24
Figure 5 Procedures of the Present Study    32
Figure 6 Percentage of Learners’ Preference for Glossing    49
Figure 7 Percentage of Learners’ (L2 Group) Preference for L1 or L2 Glossing    50
Figure 8 Percentage of Glosses Leaners Referred to    50

                                

REFERENCES
Arpacı, D. (2016). The effect of accessing L1 versus L2 definitional glosses on L2
learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 15-29.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Chang, S. M. (2005). The effects of using glosses in facilitating English vocabulary
learning and reading comprehension. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan, Taiwan.
Farvardin, M. T., & Biria, R. (2012). The impact of gloss types on Iranian EFL
students’ reading comprehension and lexical retention. International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 99-114.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.
Hu, S. M. (2011). The effects of L1 and L2 e-glosses on incidental vocabulary
learning of junior high English students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Huang, Y. P. (2018). A study of differentiated instruction to enhance junior high
school students’ learning performance. (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jacobs, G. M. (1994). What lurks in the margin: Use of vocabulary glosses as a
strategy in second language reading. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 115-137.
Jacobs, G. M., Dufon, P., & Fong, C. H. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2
reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 19-28.
Ko, M. H. (2005). Glosses, comprehension, and strategy use. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 17(2), 125-143.
Ko, M.H. (2012). Glossing and second language vocabulary learning. Tesol Quarterly,
46(1), 56-79.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture
naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149-174.
Laufer, B. (2013). Lexical thresholds for reading comprehension: What they are and
how they can be used for teaching purposes. Tesol Quarterly, 47(4), 867-872.

Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual,
and “bilingualised” dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new
words. The Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 189-196.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second
language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1),
1-26.
Liao, H. W. (2018). The effect of glosses on incidental vocabulary learning for
Taiwanese EFL learners in a multimedia context. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Lomicka, L. L. (1998). “To gloss or not to gloss”: An investigation of reading
comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 41-53.
Miyasako, N. (2002). Does text-glossing have any effects on incidental vocabulary
learning through reading for Japanese senior high school students? Language
Education & Technology, 39, 1-20.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Pak, J. (1986). The effect of vocabulary glossing on ESL reading comprehension.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Potter, M. C., So, K. F., von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and
conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(1), 23-38.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X. Y., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a
text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26-43.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Diﬀerences in the metacognitive awareness of
Reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on
incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19(3), 287-307.
Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and
vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67.
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 85-101.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文