阅读任务对初、中、高级英语水平学习者词汇附带习得的影响 ——一项基于“投入量假设”的实证研究

论文摘要

词汇学习是语言学习的一个重要部分,其重要性长期以来一直受到教育界的关注。近年来,越来越多的研究者和外语教师认识到词汇学习的重要性,特别是词汇附带习得在词汇学习中的作用。Laufer和Hulstijin于2001年提出了“投入量假设”。该假设认为,阅读中的词汇附带习得与阅读任务有很大关系。不同的阅读任务可以促使学习者对词汇进行不同程度的认知加工,从而获得不同的习得效果。任务促使学习者对词汇进行认知加工的投入量越大,词汇习得的效果就越好。“投入量假设”用了三种心理状态来量化“投入量”:需要、搜寻和评估。基于以上假设,本文通过设计三项阅读任务（阅读理解+单词表、阅读理解+多项选择、阅读理解+单词表+造句）来比较不同的阅读任务对三个不同层次英语学习者,即高、中、低水平学习者的影响。同时本文试图考查在任务的投入量相同时,是否学习者的英语水平越高,附带习得的词汇就越多。基于此理论,研究者提出两个假设:1.其他因素相同,阅读任务投入量较高的组在即时词汇测验和延时测验中的表现要比阅读任务投入量较低的组明显要高。2.阅读任务投入量相同时,学习者的英语水平会对词汇附带习得产生一定影响,即:英语水平越高,附带习得的生词也就越多。研究结果表明阅读任务中较高的投入量在一定程度有助于词汇更好的习得;但对于投入量相同的任务,学习者的外语水平对词汇附带习得效果的影响并不是很明显。

论文目录

• 摘要（Abstract in Chinese）
• Abstract
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Literature Review
• 1.1 Vocabulary: a serious linguistic obstacle to language learners
• 1.2 Vocabulary and reading: word learning occurs incidentally through 1eading
• 1.3 Incidental vocabulary acquisition
• 1.3.1 Definition
• 1.3.2 Incidental vs. intentional learning
• 1.3.3 Implicit vs. explicit learning
• 1.4 Vocabulary size for incidental learning
• 1.5 Consciousness, noticing and attention
• 1.5.1 Consciousness and Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis
• 1.5.2 Attention: essential for language learning
• 1.6 The Depth of Processing Model
• 1.7 Involvement Load Hypothesis
• 1.8 Difficulties Chinese students experience in vocabulary acquisition
• 1.9 Previous experimental study on Involvement Load Hypothesis
• Chapter 2 Experimental Study
• 2.1 Purpose of the present study
• 2.2 Research questions and hypotheses
• 2.3 Participants
• 2.4 Instruments
• 2.4.1 Reading passages and target words for the three groups
• 2.4.2 Tasks
• 2.5 Administration of the tests
• 2.6 Interview with participants
• 2.7 Scoring vocabulary test papers
• 2.8 Validity and reliability
• Chapter 3 Results and Discussion
• 3.1 Results related to Hypothesis 1
• 3.1.1 Descriptive statistics for scores of the three tasks in immediate and delayed vocabulary tests
• 3.1.2 Multiple （between groups） comparisons of task effect in immediate and delayed vocabulary tests
• 3.1.3 Loss of vocabulary gains between two vocabulary tests in each task in each group
• 3.2 Results related to Hypothesis 2
• 3.3 Main findings of the study
• 3.3.1 Findings concerning Hypothesis 1
• 3.3.2 Findings concerning Hypothesis 2
• 3.3.3 Other findings of the study
• Chapter 4 Conclusion, Implications, Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research
• 4.1 Conclusion
• 4.2 Pedagogical implications
• 4.3 Limitations of the present study
• 4.4 Suggestions for future study
• References
• Appendix