سهم گستردگی و عمق دانش واژگان در موفقیت خلاصه‌نویسی فراگیران زبان انگلیسی

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی

2 دانشکده زبان های خارجی دانشگاه تهران پردیس بین الملل کیش

چکیده

تحقیق حاضر با هدف بررسی رابطه بین گستردگی و عمق دانش واژگان وموفقیت خلاصه‌نویسی فراگیران، به دنبال رسیدن به پاسخ این سوال می باشد که کدام جنبه از دانش واژگانی پیش‌بینی‌کننده قوی‌تری برای نمرات خلاصه‌نویسی در متون داستانی، استدلالی و تفسیری می باشد. بدین منظور، 80 نفراز دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی در سطح متوسط به بالا، ابتدا آزمون‌های تافل نوشتاری و آزمون نوشتاری انگلیسی تافل و سپس آزمون های گستردگی دانش واژگان و عمق دانش واژگان را پاسخ دادند و پس از آن به خلاصه‌نویسی متون مختلف پرداختند. نتایج آزمون همبستگی نشان داد که گستردگی و عمق دانش واژگان با تشخیص نقاط اصلی، استفاده از استراتژی‌های خلاصه‌نویسی و شاخص‌های نگارش در خلاصه‌های متون داستانی، استدلالی و تفسیری مرتبط است. همچنین، نتایج آزمون رگرسیون نشان داد که عمق دانش واژگان نسبت به گستردگی دانش واژگان، موفقیت در خلاصه‌نویسی را بهتر پیش بینی می کند. بنابراین، مدرسان باید فراگیران را به خواندن مستمر و زیاد متون مختلف تشویق کنند، تا از این طریق بر عمق دانش واژگانی آنها بیافزایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Contribution of Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge to EFL Learners’ Summary Writing Success

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shiva Kaivanpanah 1
  • Mahsa Parvin 2
1 Department of English Language and Literature
2 Foreign languages Department, University of Tehran, Kish international Campus
چکیده [English]

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge and EFL learners’ success in summary writing. In this study, a sample of 80 upper intermediate students majoring in English translation were assessed by their English proficiency level, writing proficiency and their English vocabulary knowledge; then, they summarized an argumentative, a narrative and an expository text. The results of correlation analysis showed that while both breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge are significantly related to identification of main ideas, use of summarizing strategies and proper writing indices in the so-called texts summaries, the contribution of depth of vocabulary knowledge to summary writing is meaningfully stronger, than the effect of its size. Similarly, the regression analysis showed that depth of vocabulary knowledge is a better predictor than the breadth, in determining students’ summary writing success. Based on the findings, language teachers are encouraged to put more emphasis on depth of vocabulary knowledge of learners and familiarize them with summarizing rules.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Vocabulary knowledge
  • Breadth of vocabulary knowledge
  • Depth of vocabulary knowledge
  • Summary writing
  • Language proficiency
Afshari,S. and Tavakoli,M. (2016).The relationship between depth and breadth of
vocabulary knowledge and Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension.
International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, Volume 6 Number
3, 13-24
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign
language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 191–20.
Bonk, W. J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension.
International Journal of Listening Comprehension, 14, 14-31.
Chen, Y.S. and Su, W.S. (2011). A genre-based approach to teaching ESL summary
writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184-192
Cho, Y. (2012). Teaching summary writing through direct instruction to improve text
comprehension for students in ESL/EFL classroom.MA Thesis, University of
Wisconsin-River Falls.
Choy, S. and Lee, M. (2012).Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning
summary writing in ESL.Journal of Teaching and Learning,8(2), 77-89.
Donohue, J. (2000). Teaching ESL Composition - purpose, process and practice. Journal
of Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 175-178
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students.
سهم گستردگی و عمق دانش واژگان در موفقیت خلاصه نویسی فراگیران زبان انگلیسی 443
Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3-24.
Garner, R., and McCaleb, J.L. (1985). Effects of text manipulations on quality of
written summaries. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 139-
149.
Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R.(1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Grabe,W., and Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow:
Longman.
Hill, M. (1991). Writing summaries promotes thinking and learning across the
curriculum-but why are they so difficult to write? Journal of Reading, 34 (7), 536-
539.
Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. The
Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153-166.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting Reading and Writing in Second Language Writing
Instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Jiuliang, L. (2014). Examining genre effects on test takers’ summary writing
performance.Journal ofAssessing Writing22 . 75–90
Kerby, L. and Li, J. (2014). The Effects of Vocabulary Breadth and Depth on English
Reading, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.University of Toronto and
Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Canada.
Kintsch, W., and Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and
production.Journal of Psychological Review,85(5), 363-394.
Koizumi, R., and In’nami, Y. (2013). Vocabulary Knowledge and Speaking Proficiency
among Second Language Learners from Novice to Intermediate Levels. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 900-913.
Laufer, B. and Paribakht,S.(1998). The relationship between passive and active
vocabularies: Effects of language learning contexts. Journal of Language Learning
48(3): 365-391
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case-study in an
elementary Spanish course.CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276.
Manchon, R. M., Murphy, L., and Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Lexical retrieval processes
and strategies in second language writing: A synthesis of empirical research.
International Journal of English Studies, 7 (4), 147– 172.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., and De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary writing in
a Thai EFL university context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24 (1), 20-32.
Mehrpour, S., Razmjo, A., and Kian, P. (2011).The relationship between depth and
breadth of vocabularyknowledge and reading comprehension among Iranian EFL
learners.Journal of English LanguageTeaching and Learning, (53)222, 98-127.
444 پژوهش های زبانشناختی در زبان های خارجی، دورة 9، شمارة 2، تابستان 1398
Milton, J. (2013). Measuring the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to proficiency in
the four skills.Journal of assessment and corpus analysis (212) 57-78.
Milton, J., Wade, J., and Hopkins, N. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral
competence in a foreign language. Journal of Bristol: Multilingual Matters(51) 83-
98.
Nation, I.S.P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Journal of Guidelines, 5(1), 12-
25.
Nimehchisalem, V. (2015) Vocabulary knowledge:Malaysian Tertiary level learners’
major problem in summary writing. Journal of language teaching and research (17)
12-30.
Palmer, J. C., and Uso, E. (1998). A product-focused approach to text summarization.
The Internet TESL Journal, 4(1).
Qian, D. and Schedle, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge
measure for assessing reading performance,Journal ofLanguage Testing, (21), 28-52
Qian, D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance.Journal of language teaching and research (8) 7-19.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge.
Journal ofLanguage Testing, , (10), 355-371.
Rouhi, M., &Mousapour, N. G. (2013).EFL learner’s vocabulary knowledge and
itsrole in theirreading comprehensionperformance.Journal of Second and
Multiple Language Acquisition – JSMULA, 1,39-48.
Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt and C. Clapham. (2001). Developing and exploring the
behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test.Journal ofLanguage
Testing, (18): 55-88
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary breadth and the skills of listening, reading and
writing.LanguageLearning Journal, (36), 139-152.
Tindal, G., Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L. and Alonzo, J. (2005), Grade-level invariance of a
theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and
oral reading fluency, Journal ofEducational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24
(3), 4– 12.
Westby, C, Barbara C., Barbara L., and Kendra H.-K.(2010). Summarizing Expository
Texts.Journal ofTopics in Language Disorders 30.4 275-87.
Yu, G. (2009). The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on
summary writing. Journal of Assessing Writing, (14), 116–13.