首页|词汇精细加工比复述加工更有效吗?——精细加工与复述加工对比研究元分析

词汇精细加工比复述加工更有效吗?——精细加工与复述加工对比研究元分析

扫码查看
为了解不同词汇刻意学习活动的有效性,采用CMA3.0对 26篇国内外词汇精细加工和复述加工对比研究进行了荟萃分析.研究发现:与复述加工相比,精细加工活动在词汇习得和保持方面更有效,即时效应为 0.355,延迟效应为 0.540;但亚组分析显示,仅提取练习和运用练习比复述加工更有效,而关键词、语义猜测、语义联想活动优势不明显.词汇测试类型、学习者二语水平会调节精细加工活动的习得效果.精细加工活动在词形测试中优势显著,在词义测试中优势不明显;精细加工更有利于低水平学习者词汇学习,对较高水平学习者影响不明显.不同文化背景也会在一定程度上影响精细加工效应,但影响不显著.
Is Vocabulary Elaboration More Effective than Repeated Processing?——Meta analysis of Comparative Study on Elaborative Processing and Repetition Processing
To investigate the effectiveness of different activities in intentional vocabulary learning,a meta-analysis by CMA3.0 was conducted on 26 studies comparing elaborate processing activities and repetition processing activities.The results showed that compared to repetition processing activities,elaborate processing activities were more effective in vocabulary acquisition and reten-tion,with immediate effect of 0.355 and delayed retention effect of 0.540.Subgroup analysis revealed that only retrieval practice and vocabulary use were more effective than repetition,while keyword method,semantic inferencing,and semantic association had no significant advantage.Vocabulary test format and learner's second language proficiency level moderated the effectiveness of elaborate processing activities.Elaborate processing activities had significant effects on form tests rather than on meaning tests;and it was more beneficial for low-level learners compared to higher-level learners.Different cultural traditions also influenced the ef-fectiveness of fine processing to certain extent,but the influence was not significant.

intentional vocabulary learningelaborative processingrepetition processingmeta-analysis

王秀丽、吴纬芳

展开 >

安徽建筑大学 外国语学院,安徽 合肥 230022

词汇刻意学习 精细加工 复述加工 元分析

安徽省高等学校省级质量工程项目安徽建筑大学校级教研项目

2022sx0202023jy57

2024

安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版)
安徽工业大学

安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版)

CHSSCD
影响因子:0.368
ISSN:1671-9247
年,卷(期):2024.41(2)