情境學習任務的涉入程度對單字學習之影響

Abstract

這份研究主要在探討三種不同的學習任務，以及學習者的閱讀能力，是否會影響台灣國中生的偶發性單字習得以及單字保留。根據涉入程度假說，當學習者在執行涉入程度較高的學習任務時，學習者可以在單字學習上有更好的效果，因此本研究採用三種不同情境學習任務：閱讀理解、閱讀填空，以及圖片寫作，來驗證涉入假說的預測性，另一方面也探討閱讀能力是否影響學習任務所引發的效果。 七十二位台灣中部的國三生參與這份研究。在實驗開始之前，研究者對他們施行了閱讀能力測驗以及前測。前測主要在確認受試者對於18個目標單字並不具備有先備知識；根據閱讀能力測驗的結果，所有的受試者被分布在三個學習任務中。受試者分成三階段來學習十八個單字，每一階段在學習完六個單字之後，會有一個立即後側，而五天之後，會再分三次執行延遲後測。 立即後測的量化分析顯示，閱讀能力對偶發性的單字習得有顯著的效果，而學習任務的涉入程度並未帶來顯著的影響，閱讀能力及學習任務之間也並未產生顯著的交互影響。雖然閱讀能力對單字習得具有極大的影響力，但是學習任務也有一定程度的影響。描述統計顯示，在執行圖片寫作任務時，受試者產生較多的單字學習，特別是閱讀能力較弱的族群，他們透過圖片寫作所學習的單字量，和閱讀能力較強的族群在進行閱讀理解及閱讀填空時所學得的單字，不相上下。研究者在延遲後測二因子變數分析上所得到的結果和前測所產生的結果相似：閱讀能力有顯著的效果，但是，學習任務的涉入程度並未有顯著效果，閱讀能力和學習任務之間也未呈現顯著的交互作用。描述統計顯示，圖片寫作所帶來的單字學習優勢在延遲後測中消失了，特別是閱讀能力較弱的族群，他們原先在圖片寫作的單字學習，和閱讀能力較強的學生在閱讀理解及閱讀填空上的表現相當，但是在延遲後測中，他們的單字保留表現，和閱讀能力較弱的人在其他兩組的表現雷同。 這些對於情境學習任務的研究發現，在教育上具有它的意義。首先，不管是接收式或產出型的學習任務都有助於偶發性的單字學習，雖然圖片輔助的句子寫作有利於單字的立即學習，但是這樣的學習任務所帶來的影響力並未持續。此外，在研究學習任務的涉入程度對單字學習所帶來的影響力時，還有其他因素需要納入考量：學習任務的所需時間、單字的提取次數、學習者的閱讀能力及學習者的先備知識。The aim of this study is to explore the efficacy of three distinct contextualized learning tasks, the reading-comprehension task, the gap fill-in task, and the picture-writing task, and reading proficiency on the incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention of junior high school students in Taiwan. The three learning tasks are formulated based on the Involvement Load Hypothesis, which assumes that the task with higher involvement load will facilitate more vocabulary learning. Based on this assumption, the incidental vocabulary acquisition from the picture-writing task is assumed to outperform than the gap fill-in task. The reading-comprehension task will elicit the least word learning among the three learning tasks. Seventy-two EFL ninth graders from three classes in a junior high school in central Taiwan participated in this study for two weeks. Prior to the experiment, a reading proficiency test to check students’ reading ability and a pretest to check students’ knowledge of 18 target words were administered. Based on the results of reading proficiency test, the participants were assigned to three task groups, each studied 18 words in three sessions via one of the three learning tasks respectively with the effect of session order and embedded text counterbalanced. In each session, 6 words were studied followed by an immediate posttest. Five days later, a delayed posttest was carried out. The results from ANOVA analysis on immediate posttest indicated that while reading proficiency reflected a significant effect, learning tasks did not, nor did interactive effect of learning task and reading proficiency. However, reading proficiency revealed a large effect size and learning task did reveal a moderate effect size. Descriptive statistics showed that PW Group, especially the subgroup of lower-proficiency readers, yielded a markedly higher mean score than the other two groups, who scored similarly. ANOVA on the delayed posttest showed the same pattern of significant test as on immediate posttest: significant effect of reading proficiency, insignificant effect of task and insignificant interactive effect between learning task and reading proficiency, and the effect size of task was minimal and reading proficiency was small. When mean scores were examined, it was found that the superiority of PW Group waned, especially for the lower-proficiency subgroup, which showed in immediate posttest an equivalent mean to those in the higher-proficiency level in the other two task groups but decreased to a level similar to those of lower proficiency readers in the other two tasks. The findings from this study had a pedagogical implication that contextualized learning tasks, be it receptive or productive, may all be conductive to promote incidental vocabulary acquisition. Although sentence production with story-picture cues, seemed to instigate more word acquisition at the completion of task, with one-round of exposure-production, the retention for whatever type of task may not hold. It is therefore suggested that further studies testing the effect of task involvement load should consider different weights of the essential component, evaluation, in the Involvement Load Hypothesis and other task variables, such as time spent on task, chances of retrieval, as well as the individual factors, such as learners’ reading proficiency and knowledge.