{"title":"语言病理学本科学生的解剖学词汇学习","authors":"Janie L. Kullmar, K. G. Blankenship","doi":"10.30707/TLCSD4.1/KQZG7225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study compared the effectiveness of a vocabulary list (i.e., explicit environment) to a textbook passage (i.e, authentic environment) for the initial exposure of domain-specific vocabulary from an anatomy textbook. Forty-two undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology students participated. The study's materials are from Anatomy and Physiology for Speech Language and Hearing, fifth edition (Seikel et al., 2016). The selection is a subtopic on the topic of the anatomy of the cerebrum. Twenty-five vocabulary words within this section are bolded by the textbook to emphasize their importance. These words were targeted in the two different conditions, authentic (textbook) and explicit (vocabulary list). The gain scores from pretest to posttest between groups (i.e., authentic vs. explicit) were similar, and this was true of students with both high and low reading abilities, as measured by the reading score from the American College Testing (ACT). Student performance was highly variable, and many students performed poorly regardless of condition. The results of the study revealed no significant differences between participants who were in conditions that received vocabulary words within the context of a textbook or isolated in a list. This poor performance may be related to research design or student reading habits in general.","PeriodicalId":45124,"journal":{"name":"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD","volume":"8 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anatomy Word-Learning in Undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology Students\",\"authors\":\"Janie L. Kullmar, K. G. Blankenship\",\"doi\":\"10.30707/TLCSD4.1/KQZG7225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study compared the effectiveness of a vocabulary list (i.e., explicit environment) to a textbook passage (i.e, authentic environment) for the initial exposure of domain-specific vocabulary from an anatomy textbook. Forty-two undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology students participated. The study's materials are from Anatomy and Physiology for Speech Language and Hearing, fifth edition (Seikel et al., 2016). The selection is a subtopic on the topic of the anatomy of the cerebrum. Twenty-five vocabulary words within this section are bolded by the textbook to emphasize their importance. These words were targeted in the two different conditions, authentic (textbook) and explicit (vocabulary list). The gain scores from pretest to posttest between groups (i.e., authentic vs. explicit) were similar, and this was true of students with both high and low reading abilities, as measured by the reading score from the American College Testing (ACT). Student performance was highly variable, and many students performed poorly regardless of condition. The results of the study revealed no significant differences between participants who were in conditions that received vocabulary words within the context of a textbook or isolated in a list. This poor performance may be related to research design or student reading habits in general.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD4.1/KQZG7225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Sciences and Disorders-CSD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30707/TLCSD4.1/KQZG7225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究比较了词汇表(即显性环境)和教科书段落(即真实环境)对解剖学教科书中特定领域词汇的初次接触的有效性。42名言语语言病理学专业的本科生参与了研究。本研究的材料来自《语音语言与听力解剖学与生理学》第五版(Seikel et al., 2016)。这篇选集是大脑解剖专题的一个子专题。这一部分的25个词汇被教科书标注出来,以强调它们的重要性。这些词汇是在两种不同的条件下,真实的(教科书)和明确的(词汇表)。根据美国大学考试(ACT)的阅读分数,两组之间从前测到后测的增益分数(即真实与外显)是相似的,对于阅读能力高和低的学生来说都是如此。学生的表现变化很大,许多学生无论在什么条件下都表现得很差。研究结果显示,两组被试接受的词汇没有显著差异,一组被试接受的词汇是课本上的,另一组被试接受的词汇是孤立的。这种糟糕的表现可能与研究设计或学生的阅读习惯有关。
Anatomy Word-Learning in Undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology Students
This study compared the effectiveness of a vocabulary list (i.e., explicit environment) to a textbook passage (i.e, authentic environment) for the initial exposure of domain-specific vocabulary from an anatomy textbook. Forty-two undergraduate Speech-Language Pathology students participated. The study's materials are from Anatomy and Physiology for Speech Language and Hearing, fifth edition (Seikel et al., 2016). The selection is a subtopic on the topic of the anatomy of the cerebrum. Twenty-five vocabulary words within this section are bolded by the textbook to emphasize their importance. These words were targeted in the two different conditions, authentic (textbook) and explicit (vocabulary list). The gain scores from pretest to posttest between groups (i.e., authentic vs. explicit) were similar, and this was true of students with both high and low reading abilities, as measured by the reading score from the American College Testing (ACT). Student performance was highly variable, and many students performed poorly regardless of condition. The results of the study revealed no significant differences between participants who were in conditions that received vocabulary words within the context of a textbook or isolated in a list. This poor performance may be related to research design or student reading habits in general.