衔接理论在高中英语词汇教学中的应用研究_周宝娟.docx

《衔接理论在高中英语词汇教学中的应用研究_周宝娟.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《衔接理论在高中英语词汇教学中的应用研究_周宝娟.docx（51页珍藏版）》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、西安工业大学硕士学位论文 Table 4.1 Comparison of EC and CC in pre-test of English vocabulary N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean EC 60 25 85 49.28 17. 143 2. 213 CC 60 19 87 52. 45 15. 323 1.978 (N=Number of the class; Min=Minimum; Max=Maximum) Table 4.2 Independent Samples T-test of EC and CC in pre-

2、test of vocabulary Levenes Test for 彳 t-test for Equality of Means Equality of | Variances : F Sig, t 丨 df 1 ： Sig. Mean Std. Error (2-tailed) Difference Difference ! : 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed 1.893 .171 ； -1.067! 118 ! ; .288： -3.167 2.968 -9.04

3、5 2.711 Equal variances not assumed ;-1,067:116.545 ! .288; -3.167 ! 2.968 -9.046 2.712 From the above tests, such conclusion is reached that the two classes have the similar means, and in the t-test of the two groups before the experiment, t-value is 0.288, which is higher than 0.05. To sum up, the

4、re is no significant difference about their English vocabulary between the two classes in pre-test. Therefore, we should consider their abilities in vocabulary are at the same level. 4.2.2 The results of pre-test about English level To find out the part that vocabulary played in the whole test, the

5、writer analyzed a piece of final-exam paper made by Shanxi province at the end of the first term in February 2010. Then, what?s the outcome of the whole test and the vocabulary score? It is shown in Table 4.3. 38 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSES Table 4.3 Comparison between passing rate of whole exam

6、 and vocabulary items Passing rate of the whole exam Passing rate of vocabulary items EC 43.5% 24.6% CC 44.6% 25.1% As is seen from the table that the students9 vocabulary proficiency is much lower than their overall ability, that is to say, most of the senior high students have problems in vocabula

7、ry learning and using. The detailed comparison of English level results between two classes is listed in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5. Table 4.4 Comparison of EC and CC in pre-test about English level N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean EC 60 30 89 59.80 15.459 1.996 CC 60 36 90 59.57 12.177 1.

8、572 Table 4.5 Independent Samples T-Test of EC and CC in pre-test of English level i Leve Tesl qua Varii F :nes for lity of mces Sig. t df t-test f Sig. (2-tailed) or Equality Mean Difference of Means Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | j Lower Upper Equal variances ；

9、 assumed 3.497 064 .092 118 .927 233 2.541 -4.798 5.264 | Equal ； variances not assumed 092 111.865 .927 .233 2.541 -4.800 5.267 In the pre-test about English level, the experimental class and control class 39 西安工业大学硕士学位论文 have the similar means, that is, 59.80 and 59.57, which shows that there was

10、no significant difference between the two classes in the mean. With regard to SD, (the mean of each sample deviating the whole average), the control class is obviously higher than the experimental class. It shows that each mark in the control class is nearer to the mean than the one in the experimen

11、tal class. In the t-test of the two groups before the experiment, t value is 0.927, which is a lot higher than 0.05. To sum up, during the pre-test, the two classes have no significant difference in the English achievement. Through English vocabulary test and English level test, such conclusions are

12、 reached that (Dmost of the senior high students have a vocabulary of below 2000, which is much lower than the requirements from the Standard of English Curriculum, and the distance between the large vocabulary owners and the poor ones is extremely obvious; (2) their English comprehensive abilities

13、are not so satisfying, in details, both the average score and the passing rate is low, besides, the distance between highest score and the lowest one is large. After the pre-tests about English vocabulary and English level, an interview about the phenomena is done by the writer among parts of the st

14、udents. When asked the causes of their low scores, most of the students due to small vocabulary as the prominent and the biggest reason. Then, lexical cohesion theory is employed into the experimental class, while the control class adopted the traditional method of teaching vocabulary. After 4 month

15、s1 training about vocabulary strategies to the experimental class, another group of data were collected and analyzed by the writer, which also includes both vocabulary test and English level test. 4.3 The results of post-test 4.3.1 The results of post-test about English vocabulary In order to check

16、the effects of lexical cohesion on English vocabulary after experiment, post-tests of two classes about vocabulary are carried out in July, 2010. Then the comparison between EC and CC of their English vocabulary after experiment is conducted, whose result is attached to Table 4.6 and Table 4.7. 40 C

17、HAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSES Table 4.6 Comparison of EC and CC in post-test of English vocabulary N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean EC 60 39 90 64.58 14.180 1.831 CC 60 25 86 53.02 13.180 1.702 Table 4.7 Independent Samples T-Test of EC and CC in post-test of vocabulary i . Levenes | T

18、est for | Equality of | Variances | t-test for Equality of Means 95% F S i g . i t ! df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference Confidence j Interval of the | Difference i ； Lower Upper 1 Equal variances assumed 2.300 132 j 4.628 j 118 .000 11.567 2.499 6.617 16.516 j Equal variances n

19、ot assumed I | 1 4.628 1 117.375 .000 11.567 2.499 6.617 16.516 From the above tables, such is seen that the mean of experimental class (64.58) is much higher than that of control class (53.02) in the post-test. In other words, the mean difference of the two groups is 11.567. Besides, t value of the

20、 two groups after the experiment is 0.000, which is much lower than 0.05, which suggests that there exist significant differences of the vocabulary level between the two classes in post-test. After the analysis of each class about the vocabulary level in pre-test and post-test, a comparison of EC be

21、fore and after experiment is conducted. The data are listed in Table 4.8 and Table 4.9. 41 西安工业大学硕士学位论文 Table 4.8 Comparison of EC before and after experiment in vocabulary Class Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean EC Post 60 64.58 12.589 1.625 Pre 60 49.28 12.655 1.634 Table 4.9 Independent

22、Samples T-Test of EC before and after experiment in vocabulary Levenes Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean j Std. Error Difference Difference Confidence Interval of the Difference ： 1 Lower Upper Equal variances assumed .135 .714 3.956 118

23、 .000 ! 一 15.301 2.304 4.553 13.680 Equal variances not assumed 3.956 117.997 .000 15.30 2.304 4.553 13.680 As is shown, the means of EC are obviously different before and after the experiment, in other words, the mean difference is up to 15.30. Besides； , the difference of EC in language proficienc

24、y reached significant level of statistics at the level of 0.000. To sum up, the significant difference occurred in EC with regard to English vocabulary level before and after using lexical cohesion. 4.3.2 The results of post-test about English level After 4 months5 vocabulary teaching strategies tra

25、ining on the experimental class, the post-test about English level is conducted to learn about whether lexical cohesion has a positive effect on students5 English comprehensive ability. The comparison betreen two classes is conducted in which the means, standard 42 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSES de

26、viations and t-test are analyzed, as Table 4.10 and Table 4.11 show. Table 4.10 Comparison of EC and CC in post-test of English level N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Std, Error Mean EC 60 47 93 68.72 12.589 1.439 CC 60 25 90 59.60 12.655 1.634 Table 4.11 Independent Samples T-Test of EC and CC in post

27、-test of English level From the above tables, such is seen that the mean of experimental class (68.72) is much higher than the one of control class (59.60) in the post-test. In other words, the mean difference of the two groups is 9.12. Besides, both the maximum and minimum in the experimental class

28、 have increased to some extent. In the t-test of the two groups after the experiment, t value is 0.041, which is lower than 0.05. In brief, there exits significant differences between the two dassesafterthevocabularyteachingandtrainingexperiment. After the analysis of each class in pre-test and post

29、-test, a comparison of EC before and after experiment is conducted. The detailed information can be seen from Table 4.12 and Table 4.13. 43 西安工业大学硕士学位论文 Table 4.12 Comparison of EC before and after experiment of English level Class Test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean EC Post 60 68.72 12.589 1

30、.625 Pre 60 59.80 15.459 1.996 Table 4,13 Independent Samples T-Test of EC before and after experiment in English level As is shown, the means of EC are obviously different before and after the experiment, exactly speaking, the mean difference is 8.917. The differences of EC in language proficiency

31、reached significant level of statistics at the level of 0.001. Thus we conclude that the significant difference occurred in EC with regard to English level before and after the experiment. By comparing the means and T-value of experimental class and control class, such conclusion can be easily drawn

32、 that there exist significant differences between the two classes no matter on vocabulary or the English level after employing lexical cohesion method. Whafs more, a comparison of EC before and after experiment is conducted, the difference of means is still obvious, which proves again that lexical c

33、ohesion has a great and positive effect on senior 44 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSES students vocabulary capability, as well as improves their English comprehensive ability. 4.4 Analysis to the results of pre-test and post-test Judging from the above statistics, we can draw the general conclusion th

34、at the students in experimental class have a great improvement both in the vocabulary level and English level. The more detailed results are presented in the following aspects: vocabulary size, the depth of the vocabulary and the awareness of using lexical strategies. 4.4.1 Vocabulary Size The vocab

35、ulary size of both classes has been larger after the experiment. Meanwhile, the experimental class has made a little greater progress than the control class in the vocabulary size. Before the experiment, the majority of the students, whether in the experimental class or the control class, have a sma

36、ll vocabulary size. Through the lexical cohesion method, the vocabulary test score of students in experiment class increased from 49.28 to 64.58. In other words, lexical cohesion method did contribute to the improvement of the vocabulary. 4.4.2 The depth of the vocabulary Compared with the tradition

37、al method of teaching vocabulary, the lexical cohesion method makes the vocabulary study more detailed and effective. The learners not only divide all the vocabulary into passive and active one, but they are guided to learn the active vocabulary from many aspects， including synonyms, antonjms, hypon

38、yms, collocations and lexical chunks. Through 4-month training， the learners increase their vocabulary amount more or less, but the most important outcome is they deepen their vocabulary knowledge and can use the active vocabulary freely and correctly, which is shown in the English examinations abou

39、t vocabulary. 4.4.3 The awareness of using lexical strategies In addition to the above two effects of lexical cohesion on the vocabulary, it also raises the awareness of the importance of vocabulary strategies, both for the teachers and students. Before the experiment, the students, as well as the t

40、eachers, are unaware of vocabulary learning strategies; instead, they just 45 西安工业大学硕士学位论文 followed the traditional teaching and learning method. Detailed speaking, the English teachers explain nearly all the new vocabulary in the wordlist to the students in class, and leave the burden task of remem

41、bering new words to the students. Day after day5 they repeat this kind of teaching method without any obvious changes. Gradually, they are used to the method of teaching vocabulary, never thinking about improving and optimizing it. For the learners, they complain their small size of vocabulary but n

42、ot realize the deep reason is their learning strategies. Through the questionnaires and experiment, most of learners and teachers realize their disadvantages of learning and teaching vocabulary, thus improve the strategies of learning vocabulary to meet their own need. 4.4.4 The raise of students5 i

43、nterest in English vocabulary Before the experiment, both teachers and students feel vocabulary learning a heavy and difficult task because of the traditional methods they use. However, during the training and practice of lexical cohesion theory, many advantages are found. First of all, the distingu

44、ish of active and passive vocabulary makes students put emphases on the former type instead of all the vocabulary that appear in the wordlist, thus they save a lot time to prepare for other tasks. Whafs more, this new way of teaching vocabulary deepens the active vocabulary knowledge so as to solve

45、the usage of important vocabulary. At last, the adding of synonyms, antonyms and hyponyms arouses the students5 interest and enthusiasm in English learning. In a word, this new way of vocabulary method is liked by both learners and teachers. 4.5 Summary For the senior high school students, not only

46、the vocabulary amount has been enlarged, but also their vocabulary knowledge has been deepened through lexical cohesion. And for the teachers, they look back their teaching process and methods, optimize their teaching methods and give more efficient instruction to the learners, especially the guide

47、on vocabulary learning strategies. Since the vocabulary problems are settled， the students， interest and enthusiasm in English learning has been enhanced, and eventually the results of English examinations have been improved. The final aim for the learners is to communicate with others fluently and

48、confidently. 46 CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSES In conclusion, lexical cohesion theory has contributed to the improvement of senior high students vocabulary learning. It proves that the teaching of vocabulary strategies facilitate English learning to a certain extent and in several ways. 47 西安工业大学硕士

49、学位论文 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, conclusions of the research are presented, and then its implications both for English teachers and learners are analyzed. Finally, it refers to the limitations of the study and further research. 5.1 Conclusions The thesis studies the effects of lexical cohesion on the senior English vocabulary through qualitative and quantitative method. From the questionnaires and pre-tests about English vocabulary as well as En