搭配詞工具對於英文學習者的搭配詞學習之成效研究

Abstract

套語性語言（即搭配詞）在第二語言習得中起著至關重要的影響，因為它有助於確定語言學習者的熟練程度。然而，英語學習者通常難以產生正確的搭配詞。鑑於搭配詞的重要影響，已經引入了各種方法來促進英語學習者的搭配詞學習，其中使用字典和參考工具是最流行的。因此，本研究比較了兩種搭配詞參考工具對高中英語學習者的搭配詞學習之影響，即在線麥克米倫搭配詞詞典（MCD）和SkELL（語言學習草圖引擎）。此外，本研究採用修改後的技術接受模型 (TAM) 作為理論框架來調查高中英語學習者如何看待這兩種工具的實施來學習搭配詞。受試者為來自越南的七十名高三資優班學生，被分為兩組（n=35），分別被指派使用MCD和SkELL學習搭配詞並完成三十項填空搭配測試。測驗分為前測跟後側，在前測試中，兩組參與者未使用任參考工具的情況下完成測試。完成前測後，參與者參加一堂培訓課程，各組先觀看教學視頻和演示環節，然後自行練習使用參考工具。在後側的過程中，學生利用參考工具完成填空題，並於測驗完成的一週後，填寫一份問卷與參加面試，針對學生的搭配詞學系型態及使用參考工具後的感想。研究者接著將兩組受試者的前測，後側的總分分別做比較，統計結果發現MCD和SkELL可以促進高中學生的搭配搜索，提高他們的搭配學習。兩組的後測存在顯著差異，表明 MCD 勝過 SkELL，似乎更適合高中學生使用。解釋兩組差異的五個主要原因是：（1）意義提供和定義解釋，（2）提供的搭配詞數量較多，（3）語義分類，（4）基於句法的劃分，以及（5 ) 輸出佈局。從學生的感受來看，兩組學生都表示 MCD 和 SkELL 對搭配詞學習有好處及輔助，並決定在未來的學習中繼續使用這兩種工具。然而，MCD 小組發現使用MCD來尋找與學習更容易，SkELL 似乎更困難且用戶友好性較差。但是，SkELL 的學生仍然向他們的朋友推薦該工具，因為他們認為的學生都有自己的學習方式。此外，本研究的定性結果還表明了這兩種工具的優缺點。在對研究結果進行分析的基礎上，還提出了該研究的教學意義和局限性，並對未來的研究提出了一些建議。

Formulaic language (i.e. collocation) plays a crucial role in second language acquisition as it helps define how proficient a language learner is. However, EFL learners usually have difficulties in producing proper collocations. Given the significant role of collocation, various approaches have been introduced to facilitate EFL learners’ collocation learning, among which using dictionaries and corpus-based tools are the most popular. Accordingly, this study compares the effectiveness of two collocation referencing tools on high school EFL learners’ collocation learning, namely online Macmillan Collocation Dictionary (MCD) and SkELL (Sketch Engine for Language Learning). This study also employed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with modification as a theoretical framework to investigate how high school EFL students perceive the implementation of the two tools to learn collocation.Seventy students from two intact classes at a Vietnamese High school for the Gifted were invited to participate in the research. These students were divided into two groups (n=35) and were respectively assigned to use the MCD and SkELL to learn and complete a 30-item gap-filling collocation test. In the pre-test, participants were asked to complete the test without any support, followed by a treatment guiding them on how toemploy the two tools. During the treatment, each group first watched a tutorial video and a demonstration session before practicing using the tools by themselves. Participants’ concerns regarding tool application were also addressed during this session. They later took the same test again with help from assigned referencing tools. After that, they were encouraged to keep using these tools to learn collocation before filling out the questionnaire and attending the interview.The statistical results showed that the MCD and SkELL can facilitate high school EFL students’ collocation search and improve their collocation learning. A significant difference was found between the two group’s posttest, suggesting that the MCD outweighed the SkELL and seemed to be more useful. Five main reasons to explain the differences between the two groups were (1) meaning provision and extra explanation provision, (2) larger number of provided collocates, (3) semantic classification, (4) part of speech-based division, and (5) output layout.Regarding students’ perceptions, students from the two groups favored the usefulness of the MCD and SkELL in collocation learning and decided to continue to use them for future study. However, while the MCD group found it easier to use the tool to navigate the collocates they needed, SkELL seemed to be more difficult and less user-friendly. However, students from SkELL still recommended the tool to their friends as they believed students have their own learning styles. Moreover, the qualitative results of this study also detailed the strengths and weaknesses of the two tools. Based on the analysis of the findings, pedagogical implications and limitations of the study were also proposed, followed by some suggestions for future studies.