臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討象形字母教學對國小四年級學童英語字彙認字和拼寫能力之影響。本研究採準實驗研究法，根據前測成績從全校四年級中選出兩班英語字彙能力相近的班級，共46位學童，分別擔任實驗組和控制組。實驗組接受象形字母教學法，控制組則以一般教學法為主，為期12週 。研究所需之資料透過前、後測的成績搜集後，以平均數t檢定加以分析與比較。
研究結果得知象形字母教學對實驗組在整體、認字和字詞拼寫上均達顯著進步水平(t = 5.63, p = .00; t = 3.62, p = .00; t = 5.67, p = .00)。然而，兩組的後測表現未達顯著差異，唯實驗組低成就學生在整體字彙能力比控制組低成就學生達非常顯著進步 (t = -2.40, *p = .03)。
總之，象形字母教學可有效提升臺灣國小四年級學童之英語字彙能力，尤其是英語低成就學童，建議可將象形字母教學作為國內國小學童英語字彙學習策略之一，且作為補救教學輔助工具。

The quazi-experimental study aimed to investigate the impact of pictographic alphabet (PA) instruction on the English vocabulary proficiency of Taiwanese fourth graders, including word recognition and word spelling. Two classes of 46 fourth graders with similar initial English vocabulary ability were selected as research subjects and served as the experimental group and the control group respectively. The former received pictographic alphabet instruction and the latter did not. The study lasted for 12 weeks. Data were collected through vocabulary pre- and post- tests and analyzed and compared with t-test.
The research results show that the experimental group made significant progress in General, WR, and WS (t = 5.63, p = .00; t = 3.62, p = .00; t = 5.67, p = .00). The results suggest that pictographic alphabet instruction be an effective strategy to improve English vocabulary proficiency of most of the fourth graders in Taiwan and can be adopted as a teaching strategy of English vocabulary instruction.
However, the between group comparison was not significantly in the posttest, except the gain scores of the low achievers in the experimental group, who made significant progress in General English Proficiency (t = -2.40, *p = .03) than those of the control group. The result indicates that pictographic alphabet instruction improves the English vocabulary proficiency of the low achievers most and further suggests that PA could serve as a supplementary tool for remedial English instruction for low achievers. .
Finally, based upon the research results, some suggestions for English vocabulary instruction and for further studies are offered.

TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study 1
Purpose of the Study 2
Research Questions of the Study 4

Definitions of the Terms 6
Pictographic Alphabet (PA) 6
Graphic Memory 6
Word Recognition 6
Word Association 7

CHAPTER TWO 8
LITERATURE REVIEW 8

Transfer of Interlanguage Learning 10
Vocabulary Learning 15
History of the Alphabet 18

Written Patterns of Chinese Language System 20
Pictograms: 象形 [xiàng xíng; form imitation] 21
Ideograms: 指事 [zhǐ shì; indication] 24
Ideogrammic Compounds: 會意 [huì yì;joined meaning] 26
Phono-semantic Compounds 形聲 [xíng shēng; form and sound] 28
Phonetic Loan Characters (PLC) : 假借 [jiǎjiè; false borrowing] 30
Derivative Cognates: 轉注 [zhuǎn zhù; reciprocal meaning] 33

Catalogues of Mastery Words for Taiwanese Pupils 35
Conclusion 39

CHAPTER THREE 40
METHODOLOGY 40

Research Design 40
Research Structure 41
Independent Variables 41
Dependent Variables 42
Controlled Variables 42
Common Variables 43

Setting and Subjects 43
Research Procedure and Duration 44
Experimental Schedule 47
Data Collection 54
Initial English Vocabulary Achievement Test 54
Vocabulary Achievement Test 54
Students’ PA Homework 54

Data Analysis 55

CHAPTER FOUR 56
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 56

English Vocabulary Ability Pretest 58
Between-group Pretest Comparisons of High and Low Achievers 60
Between-group Pretest Comparisons of High Achievers 60
Between-group Pretest Comparisons of Low Achievers 61

Within-group Comparisons of Pre- and Post- Tests 62
Within-group Comparisons of the Experimental Group 62
Within-group Comparisons of the Control Group 64
Within-group Comparisons of High and Low Achievers 67
The Gain-score Comparisons of High and Low Achievers 72

Between-group Posttest Comparisons 73
Between-group Posttest Comparisons of English Vocabulary Ability 73
Between-group Posttest Comparisons of High and Low Achievers 76
Between-group Gain-score Comparisons of High and Low Achievers 79
Conclusions 81

CHAPTER FIVE 83
DISCUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 83

Discussions 83
Visual and sound association is helpful for abstract language vocabulary learning 84
L1 learning experience can be very positive to L2 learning 84
Phonics is definitely one of the effective strategies for learning English vocabulary 85
Make use of students’ L1 experience to learn a new language 85

Suggestions
Suggestions for Pedagogical Implications 86
Suggestion for Advanced Studies 87

Limitations 88

REFERENCES 89

APPENDICES 92
Appendix A: Parents’ Consent Form 92
Appendix B: Initial English Vocabulary Achievement Test 93
Appendix C: English Vocabulary Achievement Posttest 97
Appendix D: Homework Samples 100

REFERENCES
Albert M. & Obler, L. (1978). The bilingual brain: Neuropsychological and neurolinguistic aspects of bilingualism. New York: Academic.
Bruce, F.F. (1948). “The Origin of the Alphabet,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 80: 1-11.
Chen C. F. (2007). Impacts of formal English education on Taiwanese first graders’ cognitive develop, Chinese pronunciation, word recognition and basic writing ability: Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Co.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Gallagher S. H. (2005). Using the course graphic to facilitate retention. Annual Colloquium Journal, 9, 44~48.
Genesee, F. (1981). Evaluation of the laurenval really partial and early total immersion programs. Montreal: Department of Psychology, Mcgill University.
Genesee, F. (1983). Bilingual education of majority language children: the immersion experiment in review. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 1-46
Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual develop development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 16, 161-180.
Han, Z., & Bi, Y. (2009). Oral spelling and writing in a logographic language: Insights from a Chinese dysgraphic individual. Brain & Language, 110(1), 23-28.
Hsieh, L. T. (1995). A comparative study of college students’ reading strategies and vocabulary learning: The intermediate vs. the advanced learners. Proceedings of Mid-American Chinese Professional Annual Convention (pp. 91-98), Chicago, IL, U.S.A.
Kormi-Nouri, R., Shojaei, R., Moniri, S., Gholami, A., Moradi, A., Aknari-Zardkhaneh, S. (2008). The effect of childhood bilingualism on episodic and semantic memory tasks. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 93-109.
Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Desberg, P., Saterdahl, K. (1981). Comparison of reading and spelling strategies in normal and reading disabled children. In M. P. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning (pp. 363-367). New York: Plenum.
Ransdell, S., Barbier, M., & Niit, T. (2006). Metacognitions about Language Skill and Working Memory among Monolingual and Bilingual College Students: When Does Multilingualism Matter? International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 9(6), 728-741.
READ, J. (2000). The Nature of vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reiterer, S., Pereda, E., & Bhattacharya, J. (2009). Measuring second language proficiency with EEG synchronization: how functional cortical networks and hemispheric involvement differ as a function of proficiency level in second language speakers. Second Language Research, 25(1), 77-106
Reiterer, S., Pereda, E., & Bhattacharya, J. (2009). Measuring second language proficiency with EEG synchronization: how functional cortical networks and hemispheric involvement differ as a function of proficiency level in second language speakers. Second Language Research, 25(1), 77-106
Richards, J. C. (1972). Social factors, interlanguage, and language learning. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis. London: Longman
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, M.A.: Newbury House
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3), 209-231
Thomason, S.G. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Weinreich, Uruel (1968). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton