The Effects of Semantic Clustering on English Vocabulary Learning

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	黃秋萍 Huang, Chiou-Ping
論文名稱：	The Effects of Semantic Clustering on English Vocabulary Learning 語意群集對英文字彙學習成效之研究
指導教授：	柯安娜 Katchen, Johanna 卓江 John Truscott
口試委員:	柯安娜 Katchen, Johanna 卓江 John Truscott 林律君
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：	90
中文關鍵詞：	語意群集、非語意群集、深層語意處理
外文關鍵詞：	semantically-related sets, semantically-unrelated sets, deep processing, shallow processing
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

摘要

過去的文獻指出語意群集的單字阻礙學習。為了瞭解在實際教學情境中語意群集的單字是否真正阻礙學習，以及檢視運用深層語意處理學習語意群集單字的成效，因而著手進行此篇研究。
研究對象是研究者任教的一所高中商科學程的八位男性及十一位女性學生, 他們在課堂上學習二十八個英文單字。這些單字分成四個單字表，其中兩個單字表是語意群集的單字(疾病及職業)，另外兩個單字表則是非語意群集的單字。其中一個語意群集的單字表和一個非語意群集的單字表是用淺層字形語音處理活動學習，而另一個語意群集的單字表和非語意群集的單字表則是用深層語意處理活動學習。
研究結果指出，在淺層學習□，語意群集單字的習得和非語意群集單字的習得在英翻中的立即後測中並無差別。在淺層學習□，非語意群集單字的習得在中翻英的立即後測中比語意群集單字的習得好；而在深層學習□，語意群集單字的習得在中翻英的立即後測中比非語意群集單字的習得好。此外，在淺層學習和深層學習□，語意群集單字的習得在延遲的英翻中後測□傾向比非語意群集單字的習得好；而在這兩種學習□，語意群集單字的習得和非語意群集單字的習得在延遲的中翻英後測中，看不出有任何差別。

Abstract

Previous research studies have shown that presentation of words in semantic clusters have harmful effects on learning. This study was conducted to investigate whether these harmful effects could be found in typical English classroom settings and what effects would yield if semantic clusters were studied under deep processing activities.
Subjects in this study were eight male and 11 female students from a business-oriented program in a senior high school where the researcher taught. They studied twenty-eight English words grouped in four lists of seven in their regularly scheduled English classes. Two lists were semantically-related (SR) words grouped under the categories of physical complaints and professions, and the other two lists were semantically-unrelated (SU) words. One SR and one SU list were studied through shallow-processing learning activities, and the other SR and SU lists were studied through deep-processing activities.
Results of this study showed that acquisition of SR words was not different from acquisition of SU words on the immediate recognition posttests under both shallow and deep processing conditions. Acquisition of SU words tended to be better than acquisition of SR words on the immediate production posttests under shallow learning, while acquisition of SR words tended to be better than acquisition of SU words on the immediate production posttests under deep learning. Besides, there was a tendency for SR words to be retained better than SU words under both shallow and deep processing conditions on the delayed recognition posttests. However, no difference was found between the retention of SR and SU words on the delayed production posttests under both shallow and deep processing conditions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (Chinese)……………………………...…………………………………i
ABSTRACT (English)……………………………………………………...…………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………..…………………………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………..……………………………………iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………….…………………………………….…viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………..…xi
CHAPTER I   INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………...1
    1.1    Research Background and Motivation……………………………………...1
    1.2    Goals of the Present Study…………………………..……………………...3
    1.3    Definitions of Terms……………………...…………………………………4
        1.3.1    Semantically-Related Words……………………………………..4
        1.3.2    Semantically-Unrelated Words…………………………………...4
        1.3.3    Deep-Processing Vocabulary Learning Activities………………..4
        1.3.4    Shallow-Processing Vocabulary Learning Activities…………….5
    1.4    Organization of the Thesis…………………………………………………..5
CHAPTER II   LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………...6
    2.1    Presentation of Lexis in English Teaching………………………………….6
        2.1.1    Theoretical Background………………………………………….6
        2.1.2    Interference in Word Learning…………………………………...8
        2.1.3    Semantically-Related vs. Unrelated Vocabulary Sets…………...11
    2.2    The Levels-of-Processing Hypothesis……………………………………..18
        2.2.1    Definition of the Levels-of-Processing Hypothesis………….....18
2.2.2    The Effects of Deep Processing on Vocabulary Learning………20
2.2.3    Deep Processing on the Distinctiveness Heuristics……………..24
2.3    Summary…………………………………………………………………..25
CHAPTER III   METHODOLOGY………………………………………………..27
    3.1    Design of the Study………………………………………………………..27
    3.2     Subjects and Settings………………………………………………………27
    3.3    Materials…………………………………………………………………...28
        3.3.1 Selection of Words…………………………………………………..28
        3.3.2 Vocabulary Learning Activities……………………………………...29
            3.3.2.1    Deep-Processing Learning Activities……………………...30
            3.3.2.2.    Shallow-Processing Vocabulary Learning Activities……...31
    3.4    Instruments……………………………………………………..………….32
    3.5    Procedures…………………………………………………………………33
    3.6    Data Analysis………………………………………………………………34
        3.6.1 Scoring………………………………………………………………34
        3.6.2 Measures of Data Analysis…………………………………………..35
CHAPTER IV   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………..36
    4.1.    Results and Discussion of Research Question 1……….………………….36
        4.1.1    Results from the Immediate English-to-Chinese Recognition
                Posttests…………………………………………………………36
        4.1.2    Results from the Immediate Chinese-to-English Production
                Posttests…………………………………………………………37
        4.1.3    Discussion………………………………………………………38
    4.2    Results and Discussion of Research Question 2…………………………..39
        4.2.1    Results from the Delayed English-to-Chinese Recognition
                Posttests…………………………………………………………39
        4.2.2    Results from the Delayed Chinese-to-English Production
                Posttests…………………………………………………………40
        4.2.3    Discussion………………………………………………………41
    4.3.    Results and Discussion of Research Question 3……….………………….41
        4.3.1    Results from the Immediate English-to-Chinese Recognition
                Posttests…………………………………………………………42
        4.3.2    Results from the Immediate Chinese-to-English Production
                Posttests…………………………………………………………42
        4.3.3    Discussion………………………………………………………43
    4.4    Results and Discussion of Research Question 4…………………………..44
        4.4.1    Results from the Delayed English-to-Chinese Recognition
                Posttests…………………………………………………………44
        4.4.2    Results from the Delayed Chinese-to-English Production
                Posttests…………………………………………………………45
        4.4.3    Discussion………………………………………………………46
    4.5    Results of the Post-Study Questionnaire……………………………..…...46
    4.6    General Discussion………………………………………………………..49
CHAPTER V   CONCLUSION………………………………...………………….55
    5.1    Summary of the Findings…………………………...….…………….……55
    5.2    Pedagogical Implications………………...…………………………….….56
    5.3    Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research……….…..57
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….59
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………..……64
APPENDIX B……………………………………………..…………………………66
APPENDIX C………………………………………………….…………………….67
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………..……………69
APPENDIX E……………………………………………………………….………..71
APPENDIX F………………………………….……………………………………..72
APPENDIX G………………………………………………………………………..73
APPENDIX H……………..…………………………………………………………77
APPENDIX I…………………………………………………………………………79
APPENDIX J…………………………………...…………………………………….81
APPENDIX K………….…………………………………………………………….82
APPENDIX L…………...……………………………………………………………83
APPENDIX M………………………………………………………………………..85
APPENDIX N………………………………………………………………………..87
APPENDIX O…………………………………………………………………….….89
APPENDIX P………………….……………………………………………………..90
















List of Tables

Table 1    The sum of the total syllables of words and frequencies of correct responses in each vocabulary list………………...……………………...…………....29
Table 2    Schedules of the study……………………………...……………………..34
Table 3    Comparison of SR and SU scores on the immediate English-to-Chinese recognition posttests under shallow processing conditions………………..36
Table 4    Comparison of completely correct and partially correct SR and SU words on the immediate Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow processing conditions…..…………………….………………………...….37
Table 5    Comparison of completely correct SR and SU words on the immediate Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow processing conditions ….……………………………………………………..……….38
Table 6    Comparison of SR and SU scores on the immediate and delayed English-to-Chinese recognition posttests under shallow processing conditions …………………………………………………………………40
Table 7    Comparison of completely correct and partially correct SR and SU words on the immediate and delayed Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow processing conditions……………………...……………….40
Table 8    Comparison of completely correct SR and SU words on the immediate and delayed Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow processing conditions ………………………………….…………………………..….41
Table 9    Comparison of SR and SU scores on the immediate English-to-Chinese recognition posttests under deep processing conditions………….………..42
Table 10     Comparison of completely correct and partially correct SR and SU words on the immediate Chinese-to-English production posttests under deep processing conditions………………………………………………..…….43
Table 11    Comparison of completely correct SR and SU words on the immediate Chinese-to-English production posttests under deep processing conditions………………………………………………………………….43
Table 12    Comparison of SR and SU scores on the immediate and delayed English-to-Chinese recognition posttests under deep processing conditions …………………………………………………………………45
Table 13    Comparison of completely correct and partially correct SR and SU words on the immediate and delayed Chinese-to-English production posttests under deep processing conditions …………………...……........…….…....45
Table 14    Comparison of completely correct SR and SU words on the immediate and delayed Chinese-to-English production posttests under deep processing conditions…………………………………..…………………………..….46
Table 15    Results of the post-study questionnaire……………………………………47
Table 16    Comparison of SR and SU scores on the immediate English-to-Chinese recognition posttests under shallow and deep processing conditions……..50
Table 17    Comparison of completely and partially correct SR and SU words on the immediate Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow and deep processing conditions ……………………………...……………………...51
Table 18    Comparison of completely correct SR and SU words on the immediate Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow and deep processing conditions ………………………………………………………………....51
Table 19    Comparison of SR and SU scores on the delayed English-to-Chinese recognition posttests under shallow and deep processing conditions……..52
Table 20    Comparison of completely correct and partially correct SR and SU words on the delayed Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow and deep processing conditions…………………..……………….…………....53
Table 21    Comparison of completely correct SR and SU words on the delayed Chinese-to-English production posttests under shallow and deep processing conditions………………………………………………..…..……...……..54























List of Figures

Figure 1    Completely correct and partially correct SR and SU words on the immediate production posttests under shallow and deep learning….............................51
Figure 2    Completely correct SR and SU words on the immediate production posttests under shallow and deep learning…………………………….………….....52
Figure 3    Scores of SR and SU words on the delayed recognition posttests under shallow and deep learning ……..……………………………………...…..53

                                

References

Anderson, M. C. (2003). Rethinking interference theory: Executive control and the mechanisms of forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 415-455.
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory﹝Electronic﹞. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Dale, H. C. A. (1966). The effect of similarity on retroactive interference in long-term and short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 417-420.
Baudoin, E. M., Bober, E. S., Clarke, M. A., Dobson, B. K., & Silberstein, S. (1988). Reader’s choice (2nd ed.). America: University of Michigan Press
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeon, M. G. (1982). The effects long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.
Bousfield, W. A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. The Journal of General Psychology, 49, 229-240.
Bousfield, W. A., & Cohen, B. H. (1953). The effects of reinforcement on the occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. The Journal of Psychology, 36, 67-81.
Brown, T. S., & Perry, F. L. Jr. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL Vocabulary Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 11-32.
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. ELT Journal, 35, 115-122.
Chen, Y-L. E. (1999). Motivation and language learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Washington.
Chepyshko, R. (2009). Semantic category effects in L2 vocabulary learning: A MOGUL perspective. Unpublished MA thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Chiou, L. S., & Huang, S. F. (Eds). (2008). Happy story series (Version B). Taipei: Hess Publishing Co.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 268-294.
Crow, J. T., & Quigley, J. R. (1985). A semantic field approach to passive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 497-513.
Ellis, N. C. (1995). The psychology of foreign language vocabulary acquisition: Implications for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8, 103-128.
English-Chinese Edition of the Macmillan English Dictionary. (2008). Taipei: Bookman. Hong Kong: Macmillan Publishers, Ltd.
Erten, I. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36, 407-422.
Finkbeiner, M.,& Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 369-383.
Gairns, R., &Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallo, D. A., Meadow, N. G., Johnson, E. L., & Foster, K. T. (2008). Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criteria recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 1095-1111.
Hashemi, M. R., & Gowdasiaei, F. (2005). An attribute-treatment interaction study: Lexical-set versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary. RELC Journal, 36, 341-361.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relations in word learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 170-175.
Hunt, R. R., & Mitchell, D. B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 81-87.
Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1969). Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 472-481.
Jacoby, L.L., Craik, F. I. M., & Begg, I. (1979). Effects of decision difficulty on recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 585-600.
Jullian, P. (2000). Creating word-meaning awareness. ELT Journal, 54, 37-46.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (1969). Interlingual interference and memory processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 16-19.
Krause, A., & Cossu, G. (2007). Go super teens! Taipei: Pearson Education.
Lewis, M. (2002). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Boston: Heinle.
Macmillan Publishers. (2008). English-Chinese edition of the Macmillan English dictionary. Taipei: Bookman & Macmillan.
Matthews, W. A., & Hoggart, A. (1970). Associative grouping and free recall. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 345-357.
Merriam-Webster’s Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary. (2008). Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL Journal, 9, 6-10.
Papathanasiou, E. (2009). An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary. ELT Journal, 63, 313-322.
Petersen, S. D. (1998). The effects of learning nouns in lexical sets. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Temple University, the United States.
Postman, L. (1958). Mediated equivalence of stimuli and retroactive inhibition. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 175-185.
Postman, L., & Kruesi, E. (1977). The influence of orienting task on the encoding and recall of words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 353-369.
Reed, S. K. (2004). Cognition: Theory and application. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Richards, J. C., & Lesley, T. (2000). New interchange. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, D. (Ed.). (1997). Side steps: A communicative course for learners of English. Singapore: Prentice Hall Asia ELT.
Rost, M. (Ed.). (1999). First hand. Hong Kong: Longman Asia ELT.
Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1998). Contextual interference effects in foreign language vocabulary acquisition and retention. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne, Jr. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. (pp. 77-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2002). What is learned under difficult conditions is hard to forget: Contextual interference effects in foreign vocabulary acquisition, retention, and transfer. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 419-440.
Seal, B. D. (2001). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 296-311). Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers.
Soars, L., Soars, J., & Maris, A. (2001). American headway. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sökmen, A. J. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, S. A. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction. Journal of Reading, 29, 662-668.
Starr, J., Schilling, M., Gowen, S., & Lynette, B. T. (Eds.). (2007). Key to vocabulary 4500-7000. Taipei, Taiwan: AMC Publishing Co.
Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21, 371-380.
Underwood, B. J., Ekstrand, B. R, & Keppel, G. (1965). An analysis of intralist similarity in verbal learning with experiments on conceptual similarity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 447-462.
Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: A replication. System, 25, 261-174.
Wilson, W., & Barnard, R. Fifty-fifty: An introductory course in communicative English. Singapore: Prentice Hall Asia ELT.
Yang, E. C. (2008). Power English. Taipei: Hess.
Yan, Yuan-Shu. (Ed.). (2008). American English All-Purpose Manual. Taiwan: Wan Zen Publishing Co.
Yonke, L. M. (2008). The effects of rich vocabulary instruction on students’ expository writing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.

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