作者：常乐
出版社：上海交通大学出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
元认知策略研究：二语听力理解与附带词汇习得(英文版)试读：
前言
自从“大学英语”被作为一门课程纳入我国的高等教育以来，听力和词汇就一直是困扰广大英语师生的两大难题。对于一个在攻读博士时已具备十余年教龄的我来讲，也深受其苦，用“费时低效”来形容这两种技能的教学绝对是恰如其分。为此，我决心选择“听力”和“词汇”作为我博士研究课题的两大主题词。具体而言，我选取了北方某普通二本高校的172名一年级新生，探讨不同的听力条件（包括：重复、元认知意识提升训练等）对听力理解以及词汇附带习得效果的影响，以及学生元认知听力意识、听力理解与词汇附带习得三者之间的相互关系，进而试图为国内教学同行提供可借鉴的做法，以期提高这两项技能的教学效率。
全书共分为七章。前三章分别介绍了研究背景、文献回顾和前导性研究，第四章详细介绍了研究的方法，第五章和第六章分别报告了研究问题的结果并对其进行了讨论，最后一章为研究的结论。
本人于2007年初获得国家留学基金委博士全额奖学金，同年10月开始在新西兰奥克兰大学应用语言研究与语言学系攻读博士学位，师从“二语习得”大师Rod Ellis教授。本书正是基于我的博士研究成果写成的。
在研究的过程中，我始终获得我的导师Rod Ellis教授的指导与支持，他为本书的撰写倾注了大量心血，并亲自作序。北外的刘润清教授在本书出版之前仔细阅读了书稿，提出了非常宝贵的修改意见。在此，我向两位大师表示衷心的感谢！此外，我的研究中参考了大量国内外“二语习得”研究人员的有关著作和文章，在此向这些作者表示感谢。另外，本书的出版获得了渤海大学的资金支持，在此一并致谢。
由于本人水平有限，书中错误与不当在所难免，敬请专家、学者和教学同仁不吝赐教、批评指正。
今年恰逢我选择读博十年之期，本书的出版也算是给我自己生命中的这十年一个交代。常 乐2017年9月于沈阳建大家园List of Tables
Table 1 The Requirements for Listening at the Three Levels
Table 2 Listening Comprehension Strategies and Their Definitions
Table 3 A Summary Model of the Three Typologies of Metacognitive Strategies
Table 4 Metacognitive Strategies by the Five Factors in the MALQ
Table 5 Instruments Used to Measure Vocabulary Knowledge
Table 6 Definitions of Receptive and Productive Knowledge
Table 7 Example of the Vocabulary Pre-test
Table 8 Statistics of Words in Each Level
Table 9 Schedule of the Pilot Study
Table 10 Average of the Participants' Knowledge of the Target Words in the Pilot Study
Table 11 Descriptive Data in Listening Task One
Table 12 Descriptive Data in Listening Task Two
Table 13 Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and LC in Task One
Table 14 Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and LC in Task Two
Table 15 Pearson Correlations of Group A Participants' MA and IVA in Task One
Table 16 Pearson Correlations of Group A Participants' MA and IVA in Task Two
Table 17 Pearson Correlations of Group B Participants' MA and IVA in Task One
Table 18 Pearson Correlations of Group B Participants' MA and IVA in Task Two
Table 19 Pearson Correlations of Group C Participants' MA and IVA in Task Two
Table 20 ANOVA of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task One under Three Listening Conditions
Table 21 ANOVA of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task Two under Three Listening Conditions
Table 22 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task One under Three Conditions
Table 23 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Listening Comprehension Scores of Task Two under Three Conditions
Table 24 ANOVA of the Participants' Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition under Three Listening Conditions of Task One
Table 25 ANOVA of the Participants' Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two
Table 26 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task One
Table 27 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two
Table 28 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task One
Table 29 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two
Table 30 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task One
Table 31 Multiple Comparisons of the Participants' Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Task Two
Table 32 The Participants' Average Knowledge about the Target Words
Table 33 Sample of the Vocabulary Pre-test
Table 34 Distribution of Words in Each Level
Table 35 Schedule of the Main Study
Table 36 T-test of Listening Comprehension Scores for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
Table 37 T-tests of Vocabulary Acquisition Scores for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
Table 38 T-tests of Three Vocabulary Sub-test Scores for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
Table 39 Descriptive Statistics for Listening Comprehension Scores of Two Cycles
Table 40 Scheffe Test of Differences in Listening Comprehension Scores among the Four Groups in Cycle 1
Table 41 Scheffe Test of Differences in Listening Comprehension Scores among the Four Groups in Cycle 2
Table 42 Descriptive Statistics for Vocabulary Posttests of Cycle 1
Table 43 Scheffe Test of Production Test Scores in Cycle 1
Table 44 Scheffe Test of Form Test Scores in Cycle 1
Table 45 Scheffe Test of Reception Test Scores in Cycle 1
Table 46 Descriptive Statistics for Vocabulary Posttests of Cycle 2
Table 47 Scheffe Test of Form Test Scores in Cycle 2
Table 48 Scheffe Test of Reception Test Scores in Cycle 2
Table 49 Correlations between LC and IVA for Cycle 1
Table 50 Correlations between LC and IVA for Cycle 2
Table 51 Listening Score Distribution of Each Group in the Two Listening Cycles
Table 52 Vocabulary Acquisition of Each Group in Terms of Percentage
Table 53 Pearson Correlation of Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaires for Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
Table 54 Descriptive Statistics for Metacognitive Listening Awareness for Cycle 1
Table 55 Descriptive Statistics for Metacognitive Listening Awareness for Cycle 2
Table 56 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and LC for Cycle 1
Table 57 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and LC in Cycle 2
Table 58 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and IVA (Form) in Cycle 1
Table 59 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and IVA (Form) in Cycle 2
Table 60 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and IVA (Reception) in Cycle 1
Table 61 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and IVA (Reception) in Cycle 2
Table 62 Significant Pearson Correlations of the Participants' MA and IVA (Production) in Cycle 1
Table 63 Significant Pearson Correlation of the Participants' MA and IVA (Production) in Cycle 2
Table 64 Summary Table in Terms of Metacognitive Awareness Aspects (Cycle 1)
Table 65 Summary Table in Terms of Metacognitive Awareness Aspects (Cycle 2)
Table 66 General Pattern of Correlations between the Participants' MA and LCList of Figures
Figure 1 The VKS Elicitation Scale
Figure 2 Test Mean Plots of Listening Comprehension Scores of Task One under Three Listening Conditions
Figure 3 Test Mean Plots of Listening Comprehension Scores of Task Two under Three Listening Conditions
Figure 4 Test Mean Plots of Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task One
Figure 5 Test Mean Plots of Form Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task Two
Figure 6 Test Mean Plots of Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task One
Figure 7 Test Mean Plots of Reception Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task Two
Figure 8 Test Mean Plots of Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task One
Figure 9 Test Mean Plots of Production Test Scores under Three Listening Conditions of Listening Task Two
Figure 10 Listening Conditions for the Four GroupsChapter OneIntroductionThis book reports a study that investigates the relationships between Chinese university EFL learners' listening comprehension, metacognitive awareness, and incidental vocabulary acquisition under different listening conditions. This chapter explains why this particular research topic was chosen.1.1English Teaching as a Foreign Language in Chinese Universities
In 1994, I began to teach English as a foreign language (EFL) in a Chinese university, where, as in all the other Chinese universities, the Course of College English is compulsory. According to the Chinese Higher Education regulations, once entering university, all students must complete four successive terms of College English Course, and the teaching is 64 hours per term. As described in the Chinese Education Ministry's College English Curriculum Requirements (2007), at the end of the fourth semester, students are supposed to achieve the language competence to pass the College English Test (CET) band-4 as a baseline, and the more competent students can pass CET band-6. All the students in Chinese universities strive to learn College English Course in order to pass these examinations, because without a CET band-4 certificate they are not eligible for a bachelor's degree from the universities.
EFL teachers give instruction on all the language skills (i. e., listening, speaking, reading, writing, and translating) in the College English classes. Listening and speaking are two new skills for most Chinese students at the university level, because the English instruction in middle schools is basically reading, writing, and translating. Nevertheless, when students get to university, the 64 teaching hours per term are equally distributed among the teaching of the five language skills, and therefore, listening as a brand-new language skill constitutes the main difficulty that confronts Chinese students.1.2Place of Listening Instruction in College English Courses in China
That most Chinese EFL learners' listening ability is weak in comparison to other skills such as reading and writing is, to some extent, related to the fact that in China the instructional emphasis is unbalanced so the students are not able to develop all the language skills equally. In the past, Chinese students were traditionally taught to read and write in English so that they could understand English materials in the fields of their future careers. From the perspective of the students, listening was viewed as a passive process of merely listening to a text and then finishing the after-listening questions. From the perspective of the teachers, the approach adopted focused more on the product of listening than the process. It was assumed that listening skills would develop automatically if other skills were improved to a desirable level and therefore classroom instruction on listening was unnecessary. As a result, listening activities remained virtually a test of comprehension, and listening comprehension became a skill in which Chinese students often felt they had achieved the least. “Such attributions indicate a sense of passivity and helplessness in language learners which could easily result in their becoming demotivated, resigned to being less effective listeners” (Graham, 2006). In such circumstances, offering language learners more listening activities would most likely only add to their sense of failure.
Only in the last decade has listening begun to be acknowledged in its own right in EFL education in China. The Course of College English in Chinese universities underwent a nation-wide reform in 2007 with the publication of the Chinese Education Ministry's College English Curriculum Requirements, which pointed out that “the objective of College English is to develop students' ability to use English in an all-round way, especially in listening and speaking, so that in their future studies and careers as well as social interactions they will be able to communicate effectively” (p.18). The requirements for undergraduate College English teaching are set at three levels—the basic level, the intermediate level and the advanced level, and the requirements for listening of the three levels are shown in Table 1.Table 1 The Requirements for Listening at the Three Levels(Source: College English Curriculum Requirements, p.19-22)
Though the role of listening is now recognized as important in Chinese university EFL teaching, listening instruction, with only an average teaching time of 12-14 hours in each term, is by no means adequate to help students develop the competence needed to comprehend languageinspoken form. Thereis, todate, still a gapbetweenthe requirements for listening and the teaching of listening in China. Among the major problems concerning the teaching of listening in Chinese universities, the two most significant are:
(a) To most EFL teachers in China, teaching listening is still confined to first playing a recording of a listening text, then checking the students' answers, and finally informing them of the correct answers. Such instructional methods as repetition, schema-raising, and strategy training are seldom employed and probably never heard of by some EFL teachers. In fact, instruction in the use of listening strategies only began in the last decade and strategies for developing metacognitive awareness have been largely neglected. The effects of metacognitive listening strategy training on Chinese EFL learners' listening comprehension have been little studied and little is known about the relationship between the learners' metacognitive listening awareness and their listening comprehension.
(b) As a major component of listening input, vocabulary is of primary importance to Chinese EFL learners' listening comprehension. Also incidental vocabulary acquisition through listening is a promising source of new vocabulary for Chinese university EFL learners. Nevertheless, incidental acquisition of vocabulary through listening by Chinese learners has hardly been researched in China, neither has the relationship between Chinese learners' EFL vocabulary acquisition andtheir metacognitive awareness.1.3Theoretical Issues Addressed in the Book
This study explores three key theoretical constructs: “listening comprehension”, “incidental vocabulary acquisition”and “metacognitive listening awareness”. It is concerned with the relationships among these three constructs.1.3.1 Listening Comprehension
Since the 1980s, increasing attention has been placed on listening. Second language (L2) researchers view it as a complex cognitive process and a key aspect of oral proficiency. Peterson (2001) explains that listening comprehension is a multilevel and interactive process where listeners work on various levels of cognitive processing to understand the incoming speech. Listening is generally viewed as involving an interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing.
Top-down processing, according to Rost (2011), stands for the information processing guided by higher level mental processes as we construct representations by drawing on our experiences and expectations. Listeners tap into background knowledge of the topic, the situation or context, the type of text, and the language. This background knowledge activates a set of expectations that help the listeners to interpret what is heard and anticipate what will come next (p.346). In other words, listeners use top-down processes when they build a conceptual framework for comprehension by using their familiarity with the listening context and their prior knowledge (topic, genre, culture, and other schema knowledge). Listeners use content words and contextual clues to form hypotheses in an exploratory manner.
On the other hand, bottom-up processing, as described by Rost (2011), refers to the information processing that is guided by input in real time, and proceeds in sequential stages. Listeners use text-based strategies for comprehension, focusing on combinations of sounds, words, and grammar (p.314). In other words, listeners use bottom-up processes when they use their linguistic knowledge of sounds and word forms to process more complex lexical and grammatical items in order to interpret the input. Listeners use bottom-up processes when they construct meaning by accretion, gradually combining increasingly larger units of meaning from the phoneme-level up to discourse-level features.
This view of listening as involving both top-down processing and bottom-up processing is in accordance with second language theory, which views listening as an interactive and complex process in which listeners focus attention on selective aspects of oral input, construct meaning, and relate what they hear to existing knowledge. Listening comprehension, then, is not just top-down or bottom-up processing, but is an interactive and interpretive process in which listeners use both linguistic knowledge and contextual knowledge to understand messages.1.3.2 Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition
It is generally accepted that a considerable amount of vocabulary is acquired incidentally, i. e. as a “by-product”of reading (e. g., Nation & Coady, 1988; Nation, 2001). Incidental learning is defined as “learning without an intent to learn, or as the learning of one thing, for example vocabulary, when the student's primary objective is to do something else” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p.10). Incidental vocabulary acquisition can be defined as “the learning of new words as a by-product of a meaning-focused communicative activity, such as reading, listening, and interaction, which occurs through multiple exposure to a word in different contexts” (Huckin & Coady, 1999, p.185). For incidental vocabulary acquisition to occur, attention to lexical forms and inferencing lexical meanings from context are two necessary and crucial factors.
The concept of attention is used to describe “the processes involved in selecting the information to be processed and stored in memory” (Robinson, 1993, p.287). In incidental vocabulary acquisition, the learner's attention is primarily focused on communicative meaning, not on form. However, many theorists argue that vocabulary learning requires attention to both meaning and form (e. g., Ellis, 1995; Robinson, 1995). Schmidt (1993) pointed out that, to some degree at least, conscious attention to form is necessary for incidental learning. Intake is defined as the subset of input that is attended to and noticed. In other words, attention to form in the input is necessary for input to become intake and thus available for further mental processing. Attention is clearly related to purpose, which in turn is governed in large part by task demands. L2 researchers (e. g., Schmidt, 1990) claim that incidental acquisition is possible when task demands force L2 learners' attention onto specific features in the input. In other words, well-designed tasks can facilitate noticing of aspects of L2 syntax, vocabulary, and phonology.
It is generally agreed that most of the vocabulary is acquired incidentally (e. g., Huckin & Coady, 1999; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). Failure to work out the meanings of essential words may impede the overall understanding of reading or oral texts. Therefore, it is crucial for L2 learners to develop “on-line”skills or strategies to handle unfamiliar vocabulary, for example, the strategy of inferencing lexical meaning from context.
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]