Amir Hossein Sohbati, M. Boroumand, Farzaneh Khakzad Esfahlan
{"title":"词汇精化与排版强化:它们对附带词汇学习的分离与联合影响","authors":"Amir Hossein Sohbati, M. Boroumand, Farzaneh Khakzad Esfahlan","doi":"10.31458/IEJES.757203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study examined two input modification techniques, namely lexical elaboration (LE) and typographical enhancement (TE), and the combination of these two (LE & TE) to seek the difference among them as far as incidental vocabulary learning through reading is concerned. Ninety-six Iranian EFL students whose reading proficiency was at intermediate level were divided into four groups and respectively read texts which were (a) lexically elaborated, (b) typographically enhanced, (c) both lexically elaborated and typographically enhanced, or (d) unmodified baseline. Right after reading, their incidental vocabulary learning was assessed by means of a modified version of Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). Results of the ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference among the four groups. In order to pinpoint where the differences exactly lay, a multiple comparison was done through the application of a post-hoc Scheffe Test. The results suggested that students performed significantly better on a text that had undergone both modification techniques (i.e. double-treatment). However, lexical elaboration alone did not have a statistically significant effect on incidental vocabulary learning through reading. More interestingly, there was no significant difference between the double-treatment and typographical enhancement groups although their mean scores were different.","PeriodicalId":187210,"journal":{"name":"International e-Journal of Educational Studies","volume":"143 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lexical Elaboration and Typographical Enhancement: Their Discrete and Combined Impact on Incidental Vocabulary Learning\",\"authors\":\"Amir Hossein Sohbati, M. Boroumand, Farzaneh Khakzad Esfahlan\",\"doi\":\"10.31458/IEJES.757203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present study examined two input modification techniques, namely lexical elaboration (LE) and typographical enhancement (TE), and the combination of these two (LE & TE) to seek the difference among them as far as incidental vocabulary learning through reading is concerned. Ninety-six Iranian EFL students whose reading proficiency was at intermediate level were divided into four groups and respectively read texts which were (a) lexically elaborated, (b) typographically enhanced, (c) both lexically elaborated and typographically enhanced, or (d) unmodified baseline. Right after reading, their incidental vocabulary learning was assessed by means of a modified version of Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). Results of the ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference among the four groups. In order to pinpoint where the differences exactly lay, a multiple comparison was done through the application of a post-hoc Scheffe Test. The results suggested that students performed significantly better on a text that had undergone both modification techniques (i.e. double-treatment). However, lexical elaboration alone did not have a statistically significant effect on incidental vocabulary learning through reading. More interestingly, there was no significant difference between the double-treatment and typographical enhancement groups although their mean scores were different.\",\"PeriodicalId\":187210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International e-Journal of Educational Studies\",\"volume\":\"143 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International e-Journal of Educational Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31458/IEJES.757203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International e-Journal of Educational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31458/IEJES.757203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本研究考察了词汇细化(lexical elaboration, LE)和排版强化(typographical enhancement, TE)这两种输入修饰技巧,并将它们结合起来(LE & TE),以探究它们在阅读附带词汇学习中的差异。96名阅读水平处于中等水平的伊朗英语学生被分为四组,分别阅读(a)词汇阐述,(b)排版增强,(c)词汇阐述和排版增强,或(d)未修改基线的文本。在阅读后,使用改良版的Paribakht and Wesche(1997)词汇知识量表(VKS)评估他们的附带词汇学习情况。方差分析结果显示四组间存在显著差异。为了确定差异的确切位置,通过应用事后谢夫测试进行了多次比较。结果表明,学生在经过两种修改技术(即双重处理)的文本上表现得明显更好。然而,单独的词汇阐述对阅读附带词汇学习没有统计学上的显著影响。更有趣的是,在双重处理组和排版增强组之间没有显著差异,尽管他们的平均得分不同。
Lexical Elaboration and Typographical Enhancement: Their Discrete and Combined Impact on Incidental Vocabulary Learning
The present study examined two input modification techniques, namely lexical elaboration (LE) and typographical enhancement (TE), and the combination of these two (LE & TE) to seek the difference among them as far as incidental vocabulary learning through reading is concerned. Ninety-six Iranian EFL students whose reading proficiency was at intermediate level were divided into four groups and respectively read texts which were (a) lexically elaborated, (b) typographically enhanced, (c) both lexically elaborated and typographically enhanced, or (d) unmodified baseline. Right after reading, their incidental vocabulary learning was assessed by means of a modified version of Paribakht and Wesche’s (1997) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS). Results of the ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference among the four groups. In order to pinpoint where the differences exactly lay, a multiple comparison was done through the application of a post-hoc Scheffe Test. The results suggested that students performed significantly better on a text that had undergone both modification techniques (i.e. double-treatment). However, lexical elaboration alone did not have a statistically significant effect on incidental vocabulary learning through reading. More interestingly, there was no significant difference between the double-treatment and typographical enhancement groups although their mean scores were different.