A Longitudinal Case Study of the Acquisition of Academic Vocabulary in Writing by EFL Students

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	陳建智 Chen, Chien-Chih
論文名稱：	A Longitudinal Case Study of the Acquisition of Academic Vocabulary in Writing by EFL Students 寫作中學術英文詞彙習得之長期個案研究
指導教授：	劉顯親 Liou, Hsien-Chin
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2011
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	109
中文關鍵詞：	長期研究、學術單字、學術英文詞彙、寫作參考工具
外文關鍵詞：	longitudianl study, academic word, referencing tools
相關次數：	點閱：2 下載：0
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

中文摘要

單字在學術寫作為不可或缺的要素，學術單字表 (Coxhead, 2000)被視為學習者發展學術讀寫能力的一重要學習目標。雖然有很多研究探討第二語言寫作中單字的使用 (Chao, 2003; Lee & Munice, 2006; Lin & Liou, 2009)，但是單字長程發展之研究極少。隨著科技的普及，台灣的外語學習者普遍使用寫作參考工具，許多文獻也證實寫作工具的成效 (如雙語字典， Laufer & Kimmel, 1997; 電子字典，Tang, 1997; 語料庫字典; Lee & Liou, 2003)。而關於寫作參考工具在學習者寫作中學術單字發展一學年的長期研究卻很罕見。
本研究追蹤三位學習者於一學年寫作中學術單字的發展並透過研究探討寫作參考工具對學習者寫作中單字發展扮演的角色。欲處理以上的議題，我們向學生介紹學術單字的重要性，及寫作工具以幫助他們寫作中學術單字的發展。語料包括三位大學生不同時間點的寫作樣本、問卷結果、Vocabulary Levels Test測驗結果以及後續訪問。我們將五篇作文及一篇論文報告建立為學習者語料庫，並以Lexical Frequency Profile軟體分析計算其頻率及精準度，並辨認出學術字串(multi-word units)次數略多者。
結果顯示學生的學術單字使用頻率及精準度呈現波動狀態。和學術單字比較，他們使用較少的學術字串。排名較高的學習來源分別來自於之前的學習以及學術文章閱讀，寫作參考工具也是重要的學習來源之一。三位學生各有獨特的寫作參考工具使用習慣以幫助自己寫作過程中學術單字的學習。
結果證明當學習者語言程度未達某一階段，學術單字字頻、字誤、字串發展在學習過程中會呈現興衰枯榮的模式。字串比單字難習得，且字串為語言精通度的指標之一。儘管不同學習者有不同寫作參考工具使用偏好，寫作工具可幫助學習者確認單字用法，也因此提升他們單字使用的信心程度及精準度。
在教學上，老師不宜期待學生學術單字學習必定為穩定發展，學習呈現波動狀態乃是正常現象。教授單字教學時，老師應介紹字串的觀念並設計活動、提供練習機會。教學方式不應只偏重隱性教學(implicit instruction)或顯性教學(explicit instruction)，而應提供不同的教學方式作為學生單字學習來源。此外，老師應介紹各種寫作參考工具，讓學生選擇自己最喜歡且最適合自己的工具，以幫助其寫作時單字的使用。

ABSTRACT
Vocabulary is an indispensable element in academic writing, and the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000) has been considered to be one crucial learning target if L2 learners want to develop their academic literacy. While there have been substantial studies on vocabulary use in writing, (Chao, 2003; Lee & Munice, 2006; Lin & Liou, 2009) limited research on academic vocabulary development in writing has been conducted. With the advent of technology, referencing tools are commonly used by EFL learners in Taiwan and have been supported by empirical studies for its effectiveness (e.g., bilingual dictionaries, Laufer & Kimmel, 1997; electronic dictionaries, Tang, 1997; concordancers, Lee & Liou, 2003). However, very few studies investigated the role referencing tools play in learners’ academic vocabulary development in writing over an academic year.
The aims of the study were to track three learners’ academic vocabulary development in writing for an academic year, and to increase our understanding of the role referencing tools play in the students’ academic vocabulary development in writing. To address the above issues, the importance of the Academic Word List and referencing tools were introduced to help the students develop their academic word use in writing. The data involved the three third-year college students’ writing assignments sampled at different time points of the year, the results of a questionnaire, Vocabulary Levels Test results and follow-up interviews. Five essay assignments and a research paper composed in a year and compiled as a learner corpus were analyzed using the Lexical Frequency Profile for its frequency, plus an accuracy measure. The learners’ use of academic multi-word units (i.e., academic bundles) was also identified.
The findings revealed that the students’ frequency and accuracy of academic word use fluctuated over a year. They produced fewer academic bundle types over time, compared with that of academic word types. Previous learning and academic reading were two top ranking learning sources. Referencing tools were also one of the important learning sources among them. Each individual had unique habits of referencing tool use to help academic word learning in the writing process.
It is argued that when learners’ language proficiency has not reached a certain level, their academic word development will manifest a progressive and regressive pattern in the learning process. Academic bundles are more difficult to acquire than single-academic words, and serve as one of the good indicators of language proficient use. Referencing tools, regardless of different learners’ diverse preferences, play a significant role in helping learners confirm word usage, and thus help learners enhance both their confidence level of academic word use and academic word accuracy rate.
In teaching, the teacher should not expect students’ academic word use must exhibit stable growth. It is normal to have fluctuation in learning. While teaching vocabulary, the teacher should introduce the concept of lexical bundles, design activities, and provide opportunities for practice. The teacher’s instruction should not only focus on either implicit or explicit instruction. Rather, both teaching approaches should be used as students’ vocabulary learning sources. In addition, various kinds of referencing tools should be introduced so that students can choose their favorite tools and their most suitable tools, which help their word use during writing.

Table of Contents
中文摘要………………………………………………………………….…………..i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….viiii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….......x
Chapter One Introduction…..………………………………………………...…….....1
Chapter Two Review of The Literature…………….…………………………………4
2.1 Knowledge of vocabulary……………………………………………………........4
2.1.1 The Academic Word List……………………………………….……….……5
2.1.2 Lexical bundles…………………………………………………………….…6
2.2 Measuring vocabulary…………………………………………………………..…7
2.2.1 Vocabulary Levels Test ….……………………………………….………..…7
2.2.2 Lexical complexity…………………………………………………………...8
2.2.3 Lexical Frequency Profile …………………………………………….…….10
2.2.4 A multi-word analysis approach……………………………………………..13
2.3 Empirical studies on learners’ vocabulary development in writing……………...15
2.4 Empirical studies on the use of referencing tools on writing or vocabulary…......18
2.5 The importance of longitudinal studies…………………………………………..22
2.6 Summary of chapter two…………………………………………………………27
Chapter Three Methodology…………………………………………………………28
3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………………….28
3.2 Instruments……………………………………………………………………….29
3.2.1 Background questionnaire …………………………………………………..29
3.2.2 Vocabulary Levels Test…………………….………………….………….…29
3.2.3 Writing prompts…..………………………………………………………....29
3.2.4 Interviews……………………………………………………………………30
3.3 An introduction to the Academic Word Sublists and referencing tools…………..30
3.4 Procedure………………………………………………………………………....33
3.4.1 The detailed description of one writing cycle……………………………….…34
3.4.2 Building learners’ writing corpora…………….…………………………….…36
3.5 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………….....37
Chapter Four Results And Discussion………………………………………………..41
4.1 The results of the background questionnaire…………………………………......41
4.2 Comparison of the Vocabulary Levels Test ………………………………...........43
4.3 The developing use of academic word……………………………………….......43
4.3.1 The developing frequency use of academic words …………………..…..…43
4.3.1.1 Interindividual performance……………………………...................45
4.3.1.2 Intraindividual performance ……………………..............................46
4.3.2 The developing accuracy use of academic words……………………….......46
4.3.2.1 Interindividual performance………………………………………...48
4.3.2.2 Intraindividual performance…………………………...……………49
4.3.3 The developing frequency use of academic bundles………………………..51
4.3.3.1 Interindividual performance……………………………….………..52
4.3.3.2 Intraindividual performance………………………………………...52
4.4 Sources of acquisition of academic words and the role of referencing tool use…54
4.4.1 The sources of acquisition of academic words………………….…………..54
4.4.2 The role referencing tools play to help academic word use in writing….…..57
4.5 Participants’ confidence in using academic words and their attitudes toward referencing tools…………………………………………………………………59
4.5.1 Students’ changes of confidence in academic word use…………………….60
4.5.2 Students’ changes of attitudes toward referencing tools………………...….63
4.6 Discussion………………………………………………………………………..66
4.6.1 The developing frequency use of academic words……………………….…66
4.6.2 The developing accuracy use of academic words…………………………...68
4.6.3 The developing frequency use of academic bundles………………………..69
4.6.4 Source of acquisition of academic words…………………………………...70
4.6.5 Different habits of referencing tool use……………………………………..71
4.6.6 Confidence changes in using academic words……………………………...73
4.6.7 Changes in students’ attitudes toward referencing tool use………………....73
4.7 Summary………………………………………………………………………....74
Chapter Five Conclusion……………………………………….…………………….77
5.1 Summary of the Findings………………………………….……………………..77
5.2 Limitations of the Study and Areas of Future Research…………………………78
5.2.1 Participants of the study…………………………………...…………..……78
5.2.2 Learning sources of academic words………………….……..…………..…79
5.2.3 Records of referencing tool use………………………………..………...…79
5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………..…….79
5.3.1 Inconsistent increase of academic word use…………………….……....….79
5.3.2 Single words and multi-word units……………………………….….……..80
5.3.3 Implicit and explicit learning sources…………………………….….……..80
5.3.4 The importance of referencing tools………………………………..………80
References……………………………………………………………………….…...81
Appendix A: Consent form………………………………………………………..…87
Appendix B: Background questionnaire I………………………………………........88
Appendix C: Background questionnaire II………………………………………..….89
Appendix D: The Vocabulary Levels Test……………………………………………90
Appendix E: Writing prompts……………………………………………………..…98
Appendix F: Interview questions……………………………………………….…..100
Appendix G: Produced academic words and accuracy rate in each essay…….……102
Appendix H: Academic bundles used in students’ essays over time……………..…106
Appendix I: A sample of one student’s essay analysis via LFP……………….........107
Appendix J: One participant’s essay with highlighted academic words…..………..108


























List of Tables
Table 3.1 An overview of the students’ data………………………………………...34
Table 3.2 The design of writing cycles…………………………...………………35-36
Table 3.3 Description of one participant’s writing over time………………………..37
Table 3.4 The three participants’ writing corpora over one academic year……….....37
Table 4.1 Rankings of preferences of referencing tool use before observation……...42
Table 4.2 The results of the Vocabulary Levels Test…………………………………43
Table 4.3 Academic word types in each participant’s writing……………………….44
Table 4.4 Academic word frequency counts…………………………………………44
Table 4.5 Academic word accuracy types in writing………………………………...48
Table 4.6 Academic word accuracy rate in writing………………………………….48
Table 4.7 Each learner’s tracked academic word examples across the six essays……………………………..……………………………………….50
Table 4.8 No. of types of academic bundles used in students’ essays………………..53
Table 4.9 Summary of academic word acquisition sources………………………….55
Table 4.10 Intentional vs. incidental learning sources…...……………………...…...56
Table 4.11 Three participants’ referencing tool use…………………………………..59
Table 4.12 Three participants’ level of confidence in academic word use…...………61










List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Inquiry outcome of a word at TANGO…………………………….………..31
Figure 3.2 Inquiry outcome of a word at TotalRecall…………………….……………32
Figure 3.3 Inquiry outcome of a word at Yahoo dictionary…………….………….32
Figure 3.4 Inquiry outcome of a word at Google dictionary………………………33
Figure 3.5 Inquiry outcome of a word at Lingoes…………………….………………..33
Figure 3.6 Web Lexical Frequency Profile……………………………….………..38
Figure 4.1 Academic word frequency development…………………….……..…..45
Figure 4.2 Accuracy development………………………………………….……...48
Figure 4.3 Andy’s changes of confidence in academic words……………………..61
Figure 4.4 Joy’s changes of confidence in academic words……………………….62
Figure 4.5 Christine’s changes of confidence in academic words…………………62

                                

References
Biber, D, Conrad, S & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university
teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
Bloch, J. (2009). The design of an online concordancing program for teaching about reporting verbs. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 59-78. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/bloch.pdf
Carroll, J. B. (1967). On sampling from a lognormal model of word-frequency distribution. In H. Kucera & W. N. Francis (Eds.), Computational analysis of present-day American English (pp. 406-424). Providence, RI: Brown University.
Chao, Y. C. (2003). Vocabulary abilities needed for a TOEFL –TYPE Test of writing. Selected Papers of the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 173-187). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chen, Y.-H. & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 30-49.
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29, 72-89.
Cortes, V. (2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397-423.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238.
Coxhead, A. (2006). Essentials of teaching academic vocabulary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 319-335.
Harley, B. (1995). Introduction: The lexicon in second language research. In B. Harley (Ed.), Lexical issues in language learning (pp. 1-28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harley, B., & King, M. L. (1989). Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 415-439.
Haswell, R. H. (1991). Gaining ground in college writing: Tales of development and interpretation. Southern Methodist University Press: Dallas, Tex.
Heatley, A., & Nation, P. (1996). Range [Computer software]. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington. (Available from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals)
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing- practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hirsh, D. (1993). The vocabulary demands and vocabulary learning opportunities in short novels. Unpublished master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Horst, M., & Collins, L. (2006). From “Faible” to strong: How does their vocabulary grow? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 83-106.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A.P. Cowie (E.D.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and Application (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, H. T. (2010). How does second language vocabulary grow over time? A multi-methodological study of incremental vocabulary knowledge development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu.
Huang, H. T., & Liou, H. C. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 64-82. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num3/huangliou/default.html
Hyland, K. (2008). As can been seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 4-21.
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41-62.
Kaur, J. & Hegelheimer, V. (2005). ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of academic word knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 287-310.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-463.
Lai, S. L. (2010). Online References as Writing Tools for College Students in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590-619.
Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25, 21-32.
Laufer, B. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world (A response to Meara). Applied Linguistics, 26, 582-588.
Laufer, B., & Kimmel, M. (1997). Bilingualised dictionaries: How learners really use them. System, 25, 361-369.
Lee, C. Y., & Liou, H. C. (2003). A study of using web concordancing for English vocabulary learning in a Taiwanese high school context. English Teaching & Learning, 27, 35-56.
Lee, S. L., & Munice, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 295-320.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85-102.
Lin, M. C., & Liou, H. C. (2009). Expansion of EFL academic vocabulary for writing via the web-based lexical instruction, English Teaching and Learning, 33, 95-146.
Lin, M. C., & Liou, H. C. (2007). The development of college learners’ academic vocabulary in writing: Appropriateness and accuracy. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 184-191). (May 5-6, 2007. Taipei, Taiwan). Taipei: Taiwan ELT Publishing Co., Ltd.
McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F. (2008). Academic Vocabulary in Use. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, S., & Salomone, W. (2008). The writer’s response: A reading-based approach to writing. (4th ed.). Boston: Thomson.
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Teaching and testing vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12-25.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P., & Laufer, B. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
Nation, P., & Laufer, B. (1998). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223-242.
Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26-45.
Resource of the Academic Word List. Retrieved January, 27, 2011, from the World Wide Web of Averil, Coxhead’s website: http://language.massey.ac.nz/staff/awl/awlinfo.shtml.
Resource of TANGO. Retrieved January, 27, 2011, from the World Wide Web of CANDLE-national e-learning project: http://candle.fl.nthu.edu.tw/collocation.
Resource of Web Vocabulary Profile. Retrieved January, 27, 2011, from the World Wide Web of Tom Cobb’s Compleat Lexical Tutor: http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the vocabulary level test. Language Testing, 18, 55-58.
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54, 525-582.
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 429-458.
Sprang, K. A. (2008). Adavanced learners’ development of systematic vocabulary knowlesge. In L. Ortega, & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 139-162). New York: Routledge.
Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, Grade 3 and 4. Instructional Science, 38, 147-171.
Tang, G. M. (1997). Pocket electronic dictionaries for second language learning: Help or hindrance? TESL Canada Journal, 15, 39-57.
West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English words. London: Longman, Green & Co.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, Hawai‘i, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Yeh, Y., Liou, H. C., & Yu, Y. T. (2007). The influence of automatic essay evaluation and bilingual concordancing on ESL students’ writing. English Teaching & Learning, 31, 117-160.
Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 31-48. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num2/yoon/

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文