|
1.0 Introduction介绍
根据传统的英语教学理论，语言被认为是通过某些语法规则产生的词汇（Lewis，1997）。目前的教学方法主要集中在语法知识的教学上，尤其是在写作教学中，但对学生来说，语法知识和结构的复杂性大大增加了他们的学习难度，使他们在表达上往往不准确，语法错误较多，缺词，逻辑混乱等问题。语言研究结果表明，英语中有大量固定或半固定的语言结构，既有句法特征，又有词汇特征（Kuang，2001；Wray，2002）。这些语言结构被称为块。MichaelLewis（1997）认为，块由预制块组成，语言不由语法和词汇组成。句子生成不依赖语法来组织单词。相反，它使用一些预编译的块，这是使语言输出方便、快速和流畅的关键（Lewis，1997；Nattinger和Decarrico，2000）。Wood（2006）提倡在外语的听、说、读、写、译的教学中使用语块，充分发挥语块高频化的优势，促进外语的记忆、存储和检索，提高教学效果。外语教学ESS。词汇法教学在当前第二语言教学的实践和理论研究中受到了广泛的关注（Pawley和Syder，1983）。然而，在香港的中等教育中却没有得到广泛的应用。本文研究了词汇教学法在香港高中英语写作教学中的运用。
According to traditional English teaching theory, language is regarded as vocabulary generated through certain grammatical rules (Lewis, 1997). Current pedagogy focuses on the teaching of grammar knowledge especially in writing teaching, but for students, the complexity of grammar knowledge and structure greatly increases their difficulty in learning, making them often inaccurate in expression, more grammatical mistakes, lack of words, logical confusion and other issues. Results of linguistic studies reveal that there are a large number of fixed or semi-fixed linguistic structures in English that have both syntactic and lexical features (Kuang, 2001; Wray, 2002). These linguistic structures are called chunks. Michael Lewis (1997) argued that chunks consist of prefabricated chunks, and languages do not consist of grammar and vocabulary. Sentence generation does not rely on grammar to organize words. Instead, it uses some pre-compiled chunks, which are the key to making language output convenient, quick and fluent (Lewis, 1997; Nattinger and DeCarrico, 2000). Wood (2006) advocates the use of chunks in language teaching and the use of chunks throughout the teaching of listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating of foreign languages, giving full play to the advantages of high frequency of chunking in facilitating memorization, storage and retrieval of foreign languages to improve the effectiveness of teaching of foreign languages. Lexical approach teaching has received a great deal of attention in the current practice and theoretical research of second language teaching (Pawley and Syder, 1983). However, it has not been widely applied in secondary education in Hong Kong. This article studies the use of lexical approach teaching in English writing teaching in Hong Kong high schools.
2.0 Research aim研究目的
本研究的目的是研究在香港高中英语写作教学中运用词汇教学法的有效性和可行性，从而形成以下研究目标。
The research aim of this study is to study the effectiveness and feasibility of using lexical approach in English writing teaching in high schools in Hong Kong, based on this to form the following research objectives.
Research objective 1: to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of lexical approach in English writing teaching;
Research objective 2: to understand how to apply and implement lexical approach in English writing teaching;
Research objective 3: to validate whether lexical approach is helpful to improve the writing performance of students in Hong Kong high schools;
Research objective 4: to try to propose on how to apply lexical approach to writing teaching for Hong Kong high school students in the Future.
3.0 Literature review
3.1 Definition and characteristics of chunk
Bolander (1989) defined chunks as a combination of various types of common words that make up a sentence, and he emphasized that these combinations must be prefabricated and easily extractable.
Wray (2002) provided three criteria for chunks: "prefabricated," "fixed," and "extractable." "Prefabricated" means that chunks are not temporarily generated by grammatical rules but are stored in memory. "Fixed" means that chunks are syntactically not analytic and they are an entirety. It is precisely because of the prefabricatedness and the fixedness of chunk itself that makes chunk be quickly extracted from memory, so it has an "easy extractable" characteristic.
3.2 Theoretical basis of lexical approach
3.2.1 Cognitive psychology theory
Psychological studies show that brain processes and stores chunks as linguistic units, rather than isolated individual words (Nattings and Carrico, 1992; Schmidt, 1992). These "preformed chunks" are easy to be extracted and they do not require lexical matching and grammar construction to provide a fast and flexible language scaffold based on contextual needs, and output chunks to reduce a learner's cognitive difficulty, which makes him easier to understand meaning, the brain does not have to think about the meaning of a single word recombination to avoid semantic ambiguity (Faerch, Haastrup and Phillipson, 1984; Skehan, 1998).
3.2.2 Intelligible input theory
Krashen and Scarcella (1978) argued that input hypothesis theory holds that language acquisition is produced by accepting intelligibility inputs. Chunk input is in line with this requirement. Compared to the input of a single word, chunk input is slightly above a learner's linguistic level, as it is mostly a multi-modal word (Qian, 2013; Zhen, 2014). At the same time, chunks are prefabricated combinations of words that may be easier to be used than a single word in a particular context. Chunks do not unduly increase the learning difficulty of students’ (Liu, 2012; Qian, 2013). Therefore, from the perspective of intelligible input theory, chunk is easier than vocabulary to become intelligible input. Learning chunks may be more effective for improving students' English scores (Xu, 2010; Qian, 2013).
3.2.3 Affective filter theory
According to affective filter hypothesis, the affective factors, such as a learner's learning motivation, self-confidence and anxiety, affect the efficiency of the learners' language acquisition. Chunks allow learners to apply directly in different contexts (Brumfit, 1984; Foster and Skehan, 1996). Learners who master chunks can help them easily and smoothly express themselves in second language acquisition and write, communicate accurately and efficiently (Fillmore, 1979). There will have a great deal of satisfaction and less anxiety commonly found in foreign language learning, and their learning will be more motivated (Sajavaara, 1987).
3.3 Positive roles of lexical approach in English writing teaching
Students can use chunks to improve their writing accuracy and authenticity. Without accumulation of chunks, students have to temporarily implement combination of vocabulary and grammar. Due to the influence of their mother tongue, they many make many mistakes in writing. If students have accumulated a wealth of chunks, their writing is accurate and authentic (Gregori-Signes and Clavel-Arroitia, 2015). Chunk is a pre-made unit of the overall storage, students in writing can extract chunks from the memory as a whole, they no longer need to temporarily consider the correctness of rules and structure of the combination of words and sentences, greatly reducing the burden of making sentences to make the articles more smoothly and coherent (Kazemi, Katiraei and Rasekh, 2014). Using enough chunks in writing reduces the burden of brains in processing information and allows students to focus their attention on how to organize the writing content from an overall point of view, so that the whole article appears structurally complete (Bestgen, 2017).
3.4 Summary
All in all, the theoretical study on lexical approach has been relatively mature, and its positive significance for English writing education has also been confirmed by many researches. However, due to the influence of many factors such as teaching system, cultural traditions and student characteristics, effects and specific steps of implementation of lexical approach different teaching environments are still different. So far, there has not been much research on the application of lexical approach in writing teaching in Hong Kong high schools. This article explore the validity and feasibility of applying lexical approach to teaching English writing in high schools in Hong Kong, so as to make up for the deficiencies of relevant research.
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Research approach
This study will make use of both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The use of quantitative research is through the statistical analysis on the students' English test scores and questionnaire data to understand whether lexical approach has a positive impact on improving students’ levels of English writing. The main content of the qualitative research is to understand the students' views and comments on English writing teaching and lexical approach through semi-structured interviews.
4.2 Research objects
This study will select 60 students from a high school in Hong Kong as the research objects. According to their average level of English, they will be divided into two classes: a control group and an experimental group, ensuring that the average English levels of the students of the two groups are relatively balanced. Students of the experimental group will be taught by using lexical approach in English writing teaching, and the control group will be taught by using traditional teaching strategies. The two groups will accept the teaching for about 16 weeks.#p#分页标题#e#
4.3 Research process
4.3.1 Implementation of lexical approach in experimental class
In the first stage, the teachers will use pre-questionnaire to understand the students' English writing levels and their difficulties, interests and opinions in learning English writing. This phase will take a week.
In the second stage, the teachers will introduce the definition and characteristics of chunks to the students, followed by the teaching method of lexical approach, so that the students can have a preliminary understanding of lexical approach. This phase will take a week.
In the third stage, teaches will teach the students the skills of finding chunks, allowing the students to find out chunks in the textbook, and to understand the types and functions of chunks, so as to provide the students with the base of using chunks. This phase will take three weeks.
In the fourth stage, lexical approach will be used in English writing teaching, and the following learning requirements will be put forward to the students: first of all, every day before class, the students should preview the texts, understanding the text knowledge and marking the chunks in the texts. Then, in class, the students will be asked to find the corresponding chunks, and the teachers will analyze how the chunks are used in the texts and how to use them in other contexts. Finally, the students will be required to use the chunks to write after class to improve their familiarity with the chunks. This phase takes 11 weeks.
In the fifth stage, it will use post-questionnaire survey and interview to understand the students' evaluation on the use of lexical approach in the English writing teaching, and to evaluate the students' writing fluency through writing test.
4.3.2 Implementation of traditional teaching method in control class
The writing teaching of students in control group mainly includes the following three aspects. Firstly, students should know the knowledge of the text before class every day. Secondly, the teachers will introduce key knowledge, including vocabulary, sentences, grammar, etc., to students in class and introduce how to apply these key points in English writing. Finally, the students are required to provide an English composition after class.
4.4 Research tools
4.4.1 English test
All the students will accept two times of English test. The first test will be carried out before the implementation of this research. According to the test results, the 60 students will be divided into two groups to ensure that the average English levels of the students of the two groups are basically balanced. The second English test will begin on the first day when the research is completed. The second English test is mainly used to determine whether the teaching test of using lexical approach can improve the students' English writing performance.
The experimental group and the control group will be tested by using the same test questions each time. The English test is divided into two parts, One is to write a small composition, about 150 words, which mainly describes a picture or a table. Another part is to write an essay of about 250 words, which mainly expresses their views on a certain point of view or an event, giving a reason for it.
The scores of the English writing test will be determined based on the following criteria. Considering the content, the content of writing should be rich, the viewpoint should be relevant, the narrative should be reasonable and creative (Bestgen, 2017). About the sentences, they should be fluent, there should be correct wording and various syntax, less grammatical errors (Kazemi, Katiraei and Rasekh, 2014). In terms of the structure, it should be rigorous and clear, the paragraph transition should be natural and the topic sentence should be general (Gregori-Signes and Clavel-Arroitia, 2015). Finally, about the handwriting, it should be clean and clear (Bestgen, 2017).
4.4.2 Questionnaire survey
All the students at the end of the course will receive a questionnaire survey, the questionnaire survey is mainly used for investigating what the students think of the problems in English writing, their view to English writing teaching, and what they think of using lexical approach in English writing teaching. All question answers will be expressed in the form of Likertscale method.
4.4.3 Semi-structured interview
Five students of the control group and five experimental group students at the end of the course will accept a semi-structured interview. The interview will be carried out in the form of face to face, lasting probably for 15 minutes, which will investigate what the problems that the students have in English writing, what view they have to English writing teaching, and their perception of using lexical approach in teaching strategy.
4.5 Data statistics
SPSS will be used to analyze the questionnaire survey results. First, it will test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire results, followed by the descriptive statistics of the questionnaire results, including mean, standard deviation, frequency and so on.
Using SPSS for statistical analysis on the test results and using T test analysis to compare the difference between academic scores of the two groups of students before and after the experiment, so as to find if there is a remarkable progress; at the same time, it will compare the scores of the experimental group students with the scores of the control group students to see if the former is significantly higher than the later, if P>0.05, it indicates that the difference between the two sets of data is statistically significant.
Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to analyze the results of interviews, it will be mainly from the English writing teaching method, the current problems in English writing teaching, as well as lexical approach, these three levels to analyze the interview data.
4.6 research ethics
All research objects and their parents will be informed in advance about the purpose of the experiment, after acquiring their consent, the research objects will be included in the investigation. All personal information relating to the research objects will be confidential and will not be used for other commercial purposes or leaked. The data obtained in this study will be collected and analyzed by the author, by checking repeatedly to ensure that the results are correct.
4.7 Research time arrangement
The approximate time arrangement of this study is estimated as follows.
References
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the Phraseology of Spoken English: the Evidence of Recurrent Word Combinations. Oxford: Oxford University Press,101-122.
Bestgen, Y. (2017). Beyond Single-word Measures: L2 Writing Assessment, Lexical Richness and Formulaic Competence. System, 69(10), 65-78.
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, Patterns and Rules in Interactions? Formulaic Speech in Adult Learners’ L2 Swedish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73-86.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The Roles of Fluency and Accuracy. Cambridge University Press.
Faerch, C. (1984). Haastrup, K. & R. Phillipson. Learner Language and Language Learning. Multilingual Matters LTD.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930-1955. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.
Gregori-Signes, C. and Clavel-Arroitia, B. (2015). Analysing Lexical Density and Lexical Diversity in University Students’ Written Discourse. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198(24), 546-556.
Kazemi, M., Katiraei, S. and Rasekh, A. E. (2014). The Impact of Teaching Lexical Bundles on Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 864-869.
Kuang, C. (2001). A Study of the Lexical Approach in Children's Foreign Language Acquisition. Unpublished MA thesis, Northwestern Polytechnical University.
Lewis, M. (1997). The Lexical Approach: the State of ELT and the Way Forward.Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Liu, Y. (2012). A Study on the Measurement of Verbal Fluency of the Second Language. Journal of the Qiqihar Normal College, 1, 138-140.
Nattings, J. & De. Carrico. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Qian, M.Q. (2013). A Study on the Acquisition of English Chunks based on Comprehensible Input 1+1 Theory. Journal of Mudanjiang University, 3, 172-174.
Pawley, A. & F. Syder. (1983). Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Native Like Selection and Native Like Fluency. London: Longman, 191-225.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Language Fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (3), 357-385.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wray. A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and Functions of Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Speech: an Exploration of the Foundations of Fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, (1), 3-33.
Xu, C. Y. (2010). The application of Chunks in College Listening Teaching. Journal of Southwest
University, 11, 213-220.
Zhen, K. X. (2014). The Application of Affective Filtering Theory in the Affective Teaching of Middle School English. Journal of Henan University, 5, 402-410.#p#分页标题#e#
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
