跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 23:45
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:李承恩
研究生(外文):Li, Chen-En
論文名稱:應用組織圖對於提升國小學生英文單字學習之成效
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Using Graphic Organizers on Facilitating Students’ Vocabulary Learning in a Taiwanese Primary School Context
指導教授:王宏均王宏均引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wang, Hung-Chun
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:英文
論文頁數:132
中文關鍵詞:組織圖單字學習單字長期記憶組織圖創作過程
外文關鍵詞:Graphic organizersvocabulary learningvocabulary retentionprocesses of drawing graphic organizers
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:17
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討應用組織圖對於提升國小學生英文單字學習之成效,並討論學生對 於應用組織圖學習單字之看法,且進一步分析學生創作組織圖的過程對於單字學習之影 響。
本研究於桃園某公立國小實施為期六週的實驗,對象為兩班共計 42 位五年級學生, 分別擔任對照組和實驗組,並由同一位英文老師教授,前者以傳統教學法授課,後者則 應用不同種類之組織圖學習。本研究於最後一週讓學生應用所學製作屬於自己的英文菜 單藉此以分析學生對組織圖之應用與了解。研究過程中,受試對象皆須完成單字檢測, 其成績則以單因子共變異數分析來分析結果。此外,為了探討學生對於應用組織圖學習 單字之看法,以及分析學生創作組織圖之過程,本研究也在實驗前後分別發放開放式問 卷予實驗組之學生,並於活動過程中發放學習單和活動結束後進行追蹤訪問。研究方法 質性資料則採布魯姆分類學來分析學生之作品、活動學習單,以及訪問逐字稿。
本研究中也發現 (1) 學生應用傳統教學法和組織圖來學習都有進步,但相較前者, 組織圖並沒有顯著的進步,不過應用組織圖較能夠幫助學生維持單字長期記憶;(2) 學 生對於組織圖之看法在實驗前後有明顯的轉變,實驗前,學生普遍認為組織圖無法幫助 他們學習英文單字;實驗後,學生則認為組織圖能夠幫助他們更有效學習單字。另外, 學生也表示製作組織圖的活動能促使他們更有興趣地學習單字;(3) 單字學習表現較好 之學生比較能正確地應用組織圖來歸納英文單字,反之,學習表現較差之學生則多普遍 選擇錯誤的組織圖且不正確地歸納單字。最後,本研究所提出的建議如下:在英文單字 教學上,英文教師可考慮善用不同種類之組織圖與傳統教學結合來維持學生單字長期記 憶。此外,英語教師也可以提供更多機會來協助學生獨自應用組織圖來歸納所學的英文 單字。
The purposes of this study were to probe into the effectiveness of using graphic organizers (GOs) to facilitate primary school students’ vocabulary learning. It also aimed to explore students’ perceptions toward implementing GOs for vocabulary learning. This study further examined the influence of students’ processes of developing GOs on their vocabulary learning. The participants were 42 students from two intact classes studying in a primary school in North Taiwan. One class was selected to be the control group and the other class was selected to be the experimental group, and both classes were instructed by the same English teacher. The control group, on the one hand, learned their target vocabulary through a conventional learning (CL) approach in which the vocabulary words were taught through English textbooks and the teacher’s PowerPoint presentations. The experimental group, on the other hand, learned their target vocabulary words with the help of the GO instruction. During the six-week treatment, several GO patterns (e.g., word maps, word webs, hierarchical, timeline, pyramid, compare and contrast) were introduced to the experimental group (the GO group) to teach the students vocabulary words. In addition, the students also finished an individual project in which they were asked to design their own menus by applying the GO patterns they learned in class.
In order to explore the effectiveness of the GO instruction on the students’ vocabulary learning, all the participants in both the CL group and the GO group were required to complete a vocabulary pretest, an immediate posttest, and a delayed posttest which assessed the students’ receptive and productive knowledge of the target vocabulary words. Afterward, ANCOVA and one-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to present the results of the study. As for the students’ perceptions toward the GO instruction, the students in the GO group were also asked to fill out two evaluation surveys, which were given before and after the treatment respectively. Furthermore, with an eye to probing into the students’ development of producing GOs, reflection sheets were handed to the students during the project and a semi-structured interview was adopted after the project. The study further adopted the Bloom’s Taxonomy to analyze the students’ posters, reflection sheets, and the written verbatim of the interview.
The results of the study indicated that both the CL group and the GO group showed an improvement in their vocabulary learning, and there was no significant difference between both groups in their immediate posttest. As for the students’ ability to recall vocabulary words after a period of time, compared with the conventional learning group, the GO instruction was found to have a significant effect on students’ vocabulary retention. With respect to the students’ perceptions of using GOs to learn vocabulary words, the study revealed that many students showed a positive change in their attitude toward the GO instruction. Before the treatment, many students disagreed with the fact that using GOs could facilitate their vocabulary learning; however, after six weeks of practicing GOs, the students considered GOs a useful organizational tool to learn and review vocabulary words faster and easier. Most students also deemed it practical and enjoyable to learn vocabulary words through the individual project. Regarding the students’ development of GOs from their projects, the study showed that the students who performed better on vocabulary learning were better at applying correct GOs patterns and organizing the vocabulary words with those patterns while the students who did not perform well on vocabulary learning were unable to apply the GOs to categorize the vocabulary words correctly.
Although the study has some limitations regarding the number of participants recruited and the instruments adopted to explore the students’ GOs development, the findings of the study suggest that English teachers should integrate different GO patterns for teaching individual words and reviewing all the words learned during typical English lessons. Additionally, teachers should offer students more opportunities to select and draw their own GO patterns so that GOs can become one of the learning strategies for students to learn and review vocabulary words. In conclusion, it is hoped that the findings of the current study have shed more light on the existing theories behind GOs and SLA research. This study also hopes to offer English teachers more directions to integrate GOs into vocabulary teaching and learning.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT i
中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Motivation and Background of the Study 1
Purposes of the Study 5
Research Questions of the Study 6
Significance of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 8
Organization of the Thesis 9

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 11
Vocabulary Learning and Teaching 11
Vocabulary Processing 11
Vocabulary Knowledge 13
Vocabulary Instructions 14
Teaching Individual Words 15
Vocabulary Learning Strategies 17
Graphic Organizers 19
Theoretical Conceptions of Graphic Organizers 21
Graphic Organizers for Vocabulary Teaching and Learning 24
Empirical Studies on Graphic Organizers in EFL Classrooms 29

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 39
Research Context and Participants 39
Teaching Materials 39
Treatment and Materials Used for the Experimental Group 41
PowerPoint Slides: Introducing of Different GO Patterns 44
Graphic Organizers for Teaching Vocabulary Words 45
Individual Project: Designing a Menu 48
Treatment and Materials for the Control Group 49
Research Instruments 50
Vocabulary Tests 50
Graphic Organizer Evaluation Survey 51
Reflection Sheet 52
Semi-Structured Interviews for the Individual Project 53
Procedure 53
Data Analysis 54
Quantitative Analysis: Vocabulary Scores 54
Qualitative Analysis: Graphic Organizers Evaluation Survey 55
Qualitative Analysis: Analysis of Students’ Individual Projects 55

CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSES AND RESULTS 59
Descriptive Data 59
Descriptive Results of Vocabulary Tests 59
Exploring the Effect of GOs Instruction on Students’ Vocabulary Learning 60
Students’ Perceptions Before and After the GO Instruction 65
Students’ Perceptions of Using GOs to Learn Vocabulary Words Before the GO Instruction 65
Students’ Perceptions of Using GOs to Learn Vocabulary Words After the GO Instruction 69
The Differences in Students’ Processes of Developing GOs Between Higher Vocabulary Achievers and Lower Vocabulary Achievers 75
Higher Vocabulary Achievers 75
Lower Vocabulary Achievers 84

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 90
Summary and Discussions of the Major Findings 90
The Effects of the GO Instruction on Primary School Students’ Vocabulary Learning 90
Students’ Perceptions Toward Using Graphic Organizers for Vocabulary Learning 92
Exploring the Differences in Students’ Processes of Producing GOs Between Higher Vocabulary Achievers and Lower Vocabulary Achievers 93
Implications of the Study 94
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 95
Conclusions 97


Reference 98
Appendixes 105
References:
Al-Hinnawi, A. N. (2012). The effect of the graphic organizer strategy on university students’ English vocabulary building. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 62–69. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n12p62
Anderson, J.R., (1983) A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
Baumann, J.F., Kame’enui, E.J., & Ash, G. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Fllod, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J. Jenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Baxter, J. (1980). The dictionary and vocabulary behavior: A single word or a handful? TESOL Quarterly, 14(3):325-365.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Omanson, R.C. (1987). The effects and uses of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.
Brown, C. & Payne, M. E. (1994). Five essential steps of process in vocabulary learning. TESOL Convention, Baltimore. Md.
Carroll, D.W. (1994). Psychology of learning. California, CA: Brooks & Cole.
Carson, D.J. (1985)Using English words, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Clark, A. (2007). GOs and the school library program. University of Alberta Department of Elementary Education.
Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
Cook, L.K., & Mayer, R.E., (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning from prose. In M. Pressley & J. Levin, (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research (pp.150-165). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1977). Early reading acquisition and its relationship to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.
Dansereau, D.F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander, (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp.63-104) New York, NY: Academic Press.
Diack, H. (1975). Test your own word power. St. Albans: Paladin.
DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 306–320.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1962). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover.
Ellis, E. S., & Howard, P. W. (2007). Graphic organizers (Go for it): Power tools for teaching students with learning disabilities. Current Practice Alerts, 13(May), 1–4. Retrieved from http://teachingld.org/alerts#graphic-organizers
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H. (1984). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Evmenova, A. S., Regan, K., Boykin, A., Good, K., Hughes, M., MacVittie, N., Sacco, D., Ahn, S. Y., & Chirinos, D. (2016). Emphasizing planning for essay writing with a computer-based graphic organizer. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 170-191. Doi.:10.1177/0014402915591697
Kilickaya, F. (2019). A review of studies on graphic organizers and language learner performance. Journal of Asia-Pacific Association for Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 6–11.
Foles, K.S. (2004) Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Frayer, D., Frederick, W.C., & Klausmeier, H.J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Graves, M.F. (2001). The vocabulary book: Learning & instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hazwani, S., Zalina, S., & Mokhtar. (2010). The effect of graphic organizer on students learning in school types of graphic organizer. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 17–23.
Heaton, J.B. (1990). Classroom testing. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited.
Hill, D. A. (1990). Visual Impact: Creative language learning through pictures. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited.
Ilter, I. (2016). The power of graphic organizers: Effects on students’ word-learning and achievement emotions in social studies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 42–64. Doi: 10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.3
Jarodzka, H., Janssen, N., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., de Jong, T., Mayer, R. E., … September, N. (2010). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Instructional Science, 22(2), 43–52. Doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
Klare, G.R. (1984). Readability. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681-794). New York: Longman.
Lessard-Clouston, M (2013). Teaching vocabulary. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.
Little, D. C., & Box, J. A. (2011, Spring). The use of a specific schema theory strategy-semantic mapping-to facilitate vocabulary development and comprehension for at-risk readers. Reading Improvement, 48(1), 24.
Lorch, R. F., Jr. (1989). Text signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.
Lubliner, S. (2005). Getting into words: Vocabulary instructions that strengthen comprehension. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Lusk, K. (2014). Teaching high school students scientific concepts using graphic organizers. Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 895. Retrieved from https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/895/
Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McElroy, L. T., & Coughlin, C. N. (2009). The other side of the story: Using graphic organizer as cognitive learning tools to teach students to construct effective counter-analysis. University of Baltimore Law Review.
McKnight, K. S. (2010). The teacher’s big book of graphic organizers: 100 reproducible organizers that help kids with reading, writing, and the content areas. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B.J. (2013). The common core: Graphic organizers for teaching K–12 students to meet the reading standards. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1990) Eurocentres vocabulary size test. Zurich: Eurocentres.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Mohammed, F. O., & Malo, S. S. (2020). Learning vocabularies through semantic mapping strategy. 8(2), 332–336.
Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11–17. Doi:10.1080/00220671.1984.10885564
Nation, I.S.P. (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Nessel, D.D., & Graham, J.M. (2007). Thinking strategies for student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Newbury House
Paivio, A. (1983) Strategies in language learning. In M. Pressley, & J. Levin, (Eds.) Cognitive strategy research (pp. 55-75). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Petty, W., Herold, C., & Stoll, E. (1967) The state of knowledge about the teaching of vocabulary. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., Loyola, M. S., & López, M. J. (2020). Study activities that foster generative learning: Notetaking, graphic organizer, and questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(2), 275–296. Doi:10.1177/0735633119865554
Reisi, M., & Saniei, A. (2016). The contribution of word webbing to project-based learning in teaching vocabulary: A comparative study in an EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(6), 1190. Doi: 10.17507/jltr.0706.17
Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B.K. Shapiro, P.J. Accarodo, & A.J. Capute (Eds.). Specific reading disabilities: A review of the spectrum. Timonium, MD: York Press.
Schmitt N. (1997) Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy, (Eds.), Vocabulary description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp.199-227). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Sedita, J. (2005). Effective vocabulary instruction. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 33–45.
Shoari, E. (2014). The effects of graphic organizer strategy on improving Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 2(1), 71–82.
Skehan, P. (2000). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, M. T. (2015). Asia making graphic organizers of graph vocabulary. Proceedings of the JALT learner development 20th anniversary conference exploring learning development: practices, pedagogies, puzzles and research, 22(2), 38–49.
Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Templin, M.C. (1957) Certain language skills in children, their development and interrelationships. Minneapolis: University of Minneosta Press.
Thornburry, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. London: Longman.
Wardani, S. I. (2015). Improving student’s vocabulary mastery using word mapping strategy. Okara, 1, 132–140.
Webber, N.E. (1978). Pictures and words as stimuli in learning foreign language responses. The Journal of Psychology, 98, 57-63.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
White, T.G., Graves, M.F., & Slater, W.H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Education Psychology, 82, 281-290.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Wong, W., & Van Patten, B. (2003). The evidence is in: Drills are out. Foreign Language Annals. 36, 403-424.
Wu, Y.T., (2012). The effects of graphic organizer instruction on English vocabulary acquisition of senior high school students: Take the Frayer Model as the basis. Master’s Dissertation, University of Chengchi, Taipei. National Digital Library of Thesis and Dissertations in Taiwan.
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20230911)
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top