國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	曾繁萍 Tseng Fan-ping
論文名稱：	字詞搭配教學對於台灣高中生字詞搭配能力之效益研究 A Study of the Effects of Collocation Instruction on the Collocational Competence of Senior High School Students in Taiwan
指導教授：	丁仁 Ting, Jen
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2002
畢業學年度：	91
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	134
中文關鍵詞：	字詞搭配、英語教學
英文關鍵詞：	collocation, English teaching
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：147 下載：14
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

本文旨在研究台灣高中生的英語字詞搭配能力，以及字詞搭配教學對於該能力的效益。九十四名國立楊梅高中的學生參與此項研究，他們被分為實驗與控制兩組。實驗組接受了為期十二週的字詞搭配教學，而控制組則無。本研究用三種方式來檢測所有參與者的英語字詞搭配能力，它們分別是一份問卷、兩份填充式的測驗、以及兩次的作文寫作。
研究結果顯示，台灣高中生的英語字詞搭配知識相當不足，而他們也無法經由自行探索的方式習得字詞搭配的知識。實驗結果證明字詞搭配教學可以提升學生對字詞搭配的認知，並進而增進學生的字詞搭配知識。然而，該項教學對於學生在寫作方面的表現，卻沒有明顯的效果。研究結果也發現，台灣高中生覺得動詞及名詞的字詞搭配比其他種類的字詞搭配要來的容易。此外，一些字詞搭配若含有學生正在學習的單字，常出現在課本裏，或者常出現在日常生活用語裏，對於高中生也比較容易。

This study aims to investigate the collocational knowledge of senior high school students in Taiwan and also to examine the effects of explicit collocation instruction on the collocational competence of those students. 94 students at National Yang Mei Senior High School participated in this study, and they were divided into the experimental group and the control group. The former received the explicit collocation instruction for twelve weeks while the latter did not. This study used three kinds of tasks to examine the collocational knowledge of the participants: a questionnaire, two blank-filling collocation tests, and two compositions.
The results show that senior high school students’ collocational knowledge is quite insufficient and that collocational knowledge cannot be learned heuristically by them. The explicit collocation instruction was proved to be able to raise the students’ awareness of collocations and thus broaden their collocational knowledge. However, the instruction did not produce obvious effects on the students’ performance in the composition writing task. The results also reveal that senior high school students find verb＋noun collocations easier than the other types of collocations. In addition, those collocations which contain the new word they are learning, which often appear in their textbook, or which are frequently used in daily life are also found to be easy for senior high school students.

CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………..i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………x

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………1
Motivation and Background……………………………………………………...1
Statement of the Problem and Research Rationale………………………………3
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………...6
Research Questions………………………………………………………………8
Delimitations……………………………………………………………………..8
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...9

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………..11
Overview of Language Testing Research……………………………………….11
Studies on Students’ Test-taking Process……………………………………….14
Early Attempts……………………………………………………………..15
Studies on Multiple-choice Reading Comprehension Tests……………….16
Studies on Cloze Tests……………………………………………………..18
Studies on Teachers’ Test construction……………………………….................20
Training in Teachers’ Test Construction…………………………………...21
Studies on Test Constructor Effect………………………………………...24
Research into the Relationship Between Test-constructing and Test-taking Processes…………………………………………………………………..26
Verbal Report in Language Testing……………………………………………..28

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY………………………………….33
Participants……………………………………………………………………...33
Instruments……………………………………………………………………...36
Background Questionnaire………………………………………………...36
Feedback Sheet…………………………………………………………….36
Foreign Language Proficiency Test………………………………………..37
Two Sets of Materials for Test Construction………………………………37
Four Mock Tests for the Scholastic Ability English Test………………….40
Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………………..41
Collection of Teachers’ Verbal Reports……………………………………42
Collection of Students’ Verbal Reports……………………………………43
Data Analysis Procedures…………………………………………………….....44

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON TEACHERS’     TEST CONSTRUCTION …………………………………………………….46
Results of Teachers’ Background Questionnaires………………………………46
Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1)……………………………………………..48
Experienced Teacher 2 (ET 2)……………………………………………..48
Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………..49
Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2)…………………………………………………..49
Analyses of Teachers’ Think-aloud Protocols…………………………………..49
Construction of Vocabulary Test Items……………………………………49
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1)………………………………….......................49
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced    Teacher 2 (ET 2)………………………………………………...54
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………………...58
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2)…………………………………………………………...59
Construction of Cloze Test Items………………………………………….64
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1)………………………………………………...65
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 2 (ET 2)………………………………………………...67
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………………...69
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2) …………………………………………………………..71
Construction of Reading Comprehension Questions……………………75
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1) ………………………………………………..76
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 2 (ET 2)………………………………………………...77
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………………...78
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2) …………………………………………………………..79
Results of Teachers’ Feedback Sheets…………………………………………..82
Analyses of Teacher-constructed SAET Mock Tests…………………………85
Analyses of Vocabulary Items…………………………………..................85
A Critique of Vocabulary Items……………………………………………88
Problems with the stems……………………………………………...88
Problems with the options……………………………………………91
General discussion on vocabulary items……………………………..94
Analyses of Cloze Items…………………………………………………...96
A Critique of Cloze Items ………………………………………………..104
Problems with the choice of blanks (or testing points)……………..104
Problems with the options ………………………………………….106
General discussion on cloze items……………………………..........109
Analyses of Reading Comprehension Questions…………………………111
A Critique of Reading Comprehension Questions ………………………113
Problems with the question stems ………………………………….113
Problems with the options ………………………………………….115
General discussion on reading comprehension questions…………..119
General Discussion on the Four Teachers’ Test Construction Performances….121

CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON STUDENTS’ STRATEGES TO ANSWER TEST QUESTIONS…………………………125
Results of Students’ Performances on the Four Mock Tests ………………….125
Noteworthy Items on Form A…………………………………………….129
Noteworthy Items on Form B ……………………………………………131
Noteworthy Items on Form C…………………………………………….135
Noteworthy Items on Form D …………………………………………...140
General Discussion on Students’ Performances on the Noteworthy Items145
Results on Students’ Strategies to Answer Questions…………………………145
Results of Students’ Strategies for Answering Vocabulary Items………..146
Results of Students’ Strategies for Answering Cloze Items ……………..151
Results of Students’ Strategies for Answering Reading Comprehension Questions …………………………………………………………...160
General Discussion on Students’ Strategies for Answering Test Questions……………………………………………………………166
Results of Students’ Opinions about Think-aloud Method and This Study…...171

CHAPTER SIX
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TEACHERS’ TEST-CONSTRUCTING AND STUDENTS’ TEST-TAKING CONSIDERATIONS……………………….175
Results of Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations …..175
Items That Caused Inconsistency Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations …………………………………………………………...184
Items on Form A ………………………………………………………....185
Items on Form B………………………………………………………….188
Items on Form C………………………………………………………….193
Items on Form D ………………………………………………………...197
General Discussion on the Inconsistency Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations on the Four Forms …………………………………200

CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION……………………………………204
Summary of the Major Findings ……………………………………………...204
Pedagogical Implications ……………………………………………………..206
Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………208
Directions for Future Research………………………………………………...209

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….211

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..219
Appendix A    Research Consent Form for Teachers……………………………….219
Appendix B    Background Questionnaire………………………………………….220
Appendix C    Feedback Sheet……………………………………………………...221
Appendix D    Shortened Version of FLPT…………………………………………222
Appendix E    Research Consent Form for Students……………………………….227
Appendix F    Materials for Test Construction …………………………………….228
Appendix G    Four Forms of the SAET Mock Tests ………………………………231
Appendix H    Dates of Data Collection …………………………………………...249
Appendix I    Teacher-constructed SAET Mock Tests ……………………………250
Appendix J    Words Chosen by Different Teachers in Their Tests ……………….267
Appendix K    Students’ Answers to the Items on Each Form ……………………..268
Appendix L    Frequencies of the Comparisons Between Students’ Test-taking  Strategies and Teachers’ Test-constructing Considerations …...........272


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.    Three Variations of the Verbal Report Procedure………………………….29
Table 2.    Participants’ FLPT Scores and Exams Averages…………………………..35
Table 3.    Comparison of Material A and Material B………………………………...39
Table 4.    Results of Teachers’ Background Questionnaires…………………………47
Table 5.    Teachers’ Considerations in Constructing Vocabulary Items……………...64
Table 6.    Teachers’ Considerations in Constructing Cloze Items……………………74
Table 7.    Teachers’ Considerations in Constructing Reading Comprehension Questions…………………………………………………………………..81
Table 8.    Results of Teachers’ Feedback Sheets……………………………………..82
Table 9.    Distribution of Items Testing on Different Parts of Speech……………….86
Table 10.    Words Teachers Chose As Correct Options………………………………..87
Table 11.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Stem in Vocabulary Items…………90
Table 12.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Options in Vocabulary Items………93
Table 13.    Results of the Appropriateness Checklist for Vocabulary Items…………..95
Table 14.    Types of cloze items the teachers constructed……………………………..97
Table 15.    Distribution of the cloze item types teachers constructed…………………98
Table 16.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Choice of Blanks in Cloze Items...105
Table 17.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Options in Cloze Items…………..108
Table 18.    Results of the Appropriateness Checklist for Cloze Items……………….110
Table 19.    Distribution of the reading comprehension question types teachers constructed………………………………………………………………..112
Table 20.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Question Stems in Reading Comprehension Items…………………………………………………….115
Table 21.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Options in Reading Comprehension Items……………………………………………………………………...118
Table 22.    Results of the Appropriateness Checklist for Reading Comprehension Questions…………………………………………………………………120
Table 23.    Means of Students’ Scores on the Mock Tests…………………………...126
Table 24.    Items Worthy of Note on the Four Forms………………………………..127
Table 25.    Noteworthy Items Constructed by Four Teachers………………………..128
Table 26.    Students’ Strategies for Answering Vocabulary Items……………………148
Table 27.    Frequencies of Each Strategy Students Used in Answering Vocabulary Items……………………………………………………………………...149
Table 28.    Students’ Strategies for Answering Cloze Items…………………………153
Table 29.    Frequencies of Each Strategy Students Used in Answering Cloze Items..158
Table 30.    Students’ Strategies for Answering Reading Comprehensions Questions.161
Table 31.    Frequencies of Each Strategy Students Used in Answering Reading Comprehension Questions………………………………………………..164
Table 32.    Frequencies of Students’ Opinions about Think-aloud and This Study….172
Table 33. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations…………179
Table 34. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations Across Two Proficiency Levels………………………………………………………..181
Table 35. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations on Three Types of Items……………………………………………………………182
Table 36. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations on Three Types of Items Across Two Proficiency Levels………………………….183


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.    Procedures for Producing Four Forms of Tests……………………………41
                                

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Al-Zahrani, M. S. (1998). Knowledge of English lexical collocations among male Saudi college students majoring in English at a Saudi university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
Amer, A. A. (1986). Semantic field theory and vocabulary teaching. English Teaching Forum, 22(4), 30-31.
Bahns, J. (1987). Kollokationen in Englischen worterbuchern. Anglistik＆Englischunterricht, 32, 87-104.
Bahns, J. (1993). Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47(1), 56-63.
Bahns, J., ＆ Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System, 21(1), 101-114.
Bamber, B., ＆ Bowers, R. (1990). Word play. London: Longman.
Benson, M., Benson, E., ＆ Ilson, R. (1986a). Lexicographical description of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benson, M., Benson, E., ＆ Ilson, R. (1986b). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A guide to word combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bolinger, D., ＆ Sears, D. A. (1981). Aspects of language (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carter, R., ＆ McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1988). Vocabulary and language teaching. New York: Longman.
Channell, J. (1981). Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. ELT Journal, 35(2), 115-121.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161-170.
Farghal, M., ＆ Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: a neglected variable in EFL. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 315-331.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Idioms and idiomaticity. In Papers in linguistics, 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.
Firth, J. R. (1968). Linguistic analysis as a study of meaning. In F. R. Palmer. (Ed.). Selected papers of J. R. Firth (pp. 12-16). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gairns, R., ＆ Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gitsaki, C. (1996). The development of ESL collocational knowledge. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Center for Language Teaching and Research, University of Queensland.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, ＆ R. H. Robins. (Ed.). In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 148-162). London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K.,＆ Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Harmer, J., ＆ Rossner, R. (1991). More than words: Book 1. London: Longman.
Harmer, J., ＆ Rossner, R. (1992). More than words: Book 2. London: Longman.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: from grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis. (Ed.). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp.47-69). London: Language Teaching Publications.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Liu, C. P. (1999a). A study of Chinese Culture University freshmen’s collocational competence: “Knowledge” as an example. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language＆Literature, 5, 81-99.
Liu, C. P. (1999b). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, 483-494.
Liu, C. P. (2000a). An empirical study of collocation teaching. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 165-178.
Liu, C. P. (2000b). A study of strategy use in producing lexical collocations. The Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching, 481-492.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McIntosh, A. (1961). Patterns and ranges. Language, 37, 325-337.
Mitchell, T. F. (1971). Linguistic ‘goings-on’: Collocations and other lexical matters arising on the linguistic record. Archivum Linguisticum, 2, 35-69.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle＆Heinle.
Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In Carter, R.＆McCarthy, M. (Ed.). Vocabulary and language teaching (pp.62-82). New York: Longman.
Nattinger, J. R., ＆ DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newman, A. (1988). The contrastive analysis of Hebrew and English dress and cooling collocations: Some linguistic and pedagogic parameters. Applied Linguistic, 9(3), 293-305.
Palmer, F. R. (1976). Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Porzig, W. (1934). Wessenhafte bedeutungsbeziehungen. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 58, 70-97.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1), 77-90.
Rudzka, B., Channell, J., Putseys, Y., ＆ Ostyn, P. (1981). The words you need. London: Macmillan.
Rudzka, B., Channell, J., Putseys, Y., ＆ Ostyn, P. (1985). More words you need. London: Macmillan.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1966). [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by C. Bally, A. Sechehaye,＆A. Riedlinger. Translated by W. Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shei, C. C. (1999). A corpus-based collocation tutor. English Teaching ＆ Learning, 24(1), 41-61.
Shih, H. H. (2000). The influence of synonymy over collocation learning. The Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching, 516-520.
Sinclair, J. M. (1966). Beginning the study of lexis. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, ＆ R. H. Robins. (Ed.). In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 410-430). London: Longman.
Swain, M., ＆ Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 372-391.
Taylor, C. V. (1983). Vocabulary for education in English. World Language English, 2 (2), 100-104.
Wang, C. J. (2001). A study of the English collocational competence of English majors in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Woolard, G. (2000). Collocation－encouraging learner independence. In M. Lewis. (Ed.). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 28-46). London: Language Teaching Publications.
Wu, W. S. (1996). Lexical collocations: One way to make passive vocabulary active. Papers from the Eleventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 461-480.
Zhang, X. (1993). English collocations and their effect on the writing of native and non-native college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
Dictionaries
The BBI Dictionary of English Combinations. (1997). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
A Concise Dictionary of English Collocations. (1994). Taipei: Jian Hong.
A Dictionary of English Collocations. (1997). Taipei: Zhong Yang.
Dictionary of Selected Collocations. (1997). London: Language Teaching Publications.
Longman Dictionary of English Collocations. (1995). London: Longman.
A New Dictionary of English Collocations. (1994). Taipei: Jian Hong.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文