연어 중심 영어 어휘 교수·학습에 관한 연구 = (A)study on collocation-based English vocabulary teaching and learning

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

With the development of computer-based language corpora, a number of researchers have recognized that a significant amount of the English language is mainly composed of lexical phrases or chunks. Also with the changing status of vocabulary, the notion of vocabulary has been broadened from single words to multi-word expressions or units. Many lexicologists who focus on vocabulary rather than grammar have maintained that collocation is the most powerful force in comprehension and production of language. However, little action research has yet been carried out to help the students learn English vocabulary in this way. Accordingly, it is necessary that practical instruction method and strategies based on the Lexical Approach be presented right here, since the approach views the principle of language learning as noticing and acquiring multi-word units like individual words.
The primary purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of collocation-based vocabulary instruction in comparison to the traditional wordlist-based vocabulary instruction on the enhancement of low level high school EFL learners’ vocabulary comprehension and on the development of 1) the degree of collocation recognition; 2) the degree of rational cloze test; and 3) the use of vocabulary learning strategies and the positive change in the affective domain.
As a preliminary survey for the experimental study, the study investigated and analyzed the use of lexical collocation in four categories (N+N, A+N, V+N, V+Adv/Adv+A) through a word corpus collected by using the MonoConc tool from the written texts of 12 textbooks used in high school under the 7th Curriculum. Also teachers’ questionnaire was administered to identify how they teach and test English vocabulary in the classroom. Two hundred and two English teachers nationwide participated in the survey. In addition, the subjects’ questionnaire was performed to identify their needs and learning style in English vocabulary learning in the classroom.
To achieve these purposes, first, an instruction model and lesson process plans were developed to apply the language learning principles and processes proposed by the Lexical Approach to the real classroom context after analyzing related literature conducted in the field of lexis in second language acquisition (SLA) research. Two groups (60 subjects each) of the 10th graders were divided equally according to the results of the pre-test of the achievement test, and then each group performed topic-specific vocabulary-focused learning activities for about three months in a different fashion. With 50 selected topics, students in a control group (G1) (41 males and 19 females) were asked to place emphasis on the wordlist on the basis of the conventional Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) teaching procedures for memorizing isolated words in a purely paired- translational equivalent fashion. While experimental group (G2) (31 males and 29 females) was required to concentrate on the collocation-oriented learning based on the new Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment (OHE) teaching paradigm with combining words that go together in a predictable way.
Second, the classroom was rearranged for cooperative learning of small group works (5 or 6 in a group). G1 and G2 conducted their vocabulary task for one topic for each lesson period according to the learning activity stages, using a vocabulary workbook developed by the researcher.
Third, each group took two types of tests. The subjects were asked to respond to questionnaires on vocabulary learning strategy used and on the effectiveness of the activities for comparison: 1) in an L2 vocabulary recognition test, collocation test (pre- and post-test, and delayed test) with 60 items of 5 sub-tests; 2) rational cloze test with 100 items; 3) questionnaires on vocabulary learning strategy used and on the effectiveness of experiment in order to see if G1 and G2 learners differed in the process of learning vocabulary.
The results of the study are as follows. First, the results of the collocation test on the pre-test revealed that G1 and G2 groups attained a similar mean score. However, G2 significantly outperformed G1 on the post-test administered at the end of the learning activity stage and on the delayed recall test administered after four months from the post-test. The results proved that the learners who learned vocabulary in a collocation-oriented manner retained the vocabulary longer, which suggests that it was retained in the long-term memory and performed better in combining words than those who learned words individually.
Second, the result of the rational cloze test was that G2 significantly gained higher mean scores on the second, third, and fourth test than G1 did, though two groups yielded a similar mean score. The implication of these results is that the learners in collocation-oriented vocabulary activities recalled more words significantly than the learners in wordlist-oriented ones.
Third, in respect to the vocabulary learning strategy use, G1 and G2 differed significantly on the second questionnaire, though not significant in the first. G2 used more strategies in order to discover and consolidate the meaning of the words. In terms of the affective domain, G2 participated more actively in the learning activities, which had a significant effect on vocabulary growth, memory, self-confidence, motivation, and cooperative learning. This is attributable to the fact that G2 was more inquisitive, interested, challenged, participatory, cooperative, and attentive than G1 in the process of the vocabulary task activities performed.
Finally, the data collected from the questionnaire, interviews, and classroom observations showed that G2 performed more interactive and dynamic activities in solving the given tasks and using new words and sentences in terms of lexico-grammatical patterns.
In conclusion, the findings of this research suggest that collocation instruction turned out to be a more effective method of English vocabulary learning than the purely paired-translation method of teaching vocabulary in the EFL high school classroom. Furthermore, explicit vocabulary teaching need to be strengthened in English education to facilitate low-level students’ understanding and use of vocabulary in the target language more productively. This study recommends that various methods and strategies be further developed for English teachers to teach English vocabulary in a more effort-effective and principled manner by utilizing, describing, and explaining collocational pairs and lexical chunks within the lesson.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1.1. 연구의 필요성 = 1
• 1.2. 연구의 목적 = 4
• 1.3. 연구 가설 = 4
• 1.4. 연구의 구성 = 5
• 1.5. 연구의 제한점 = 5
• 1.6. 용어의 정의 = 6
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 8
• 2.1. 영어 어휘 교수·학습 연구 = 8
• 2.1.1. 기본 어휘 선정과 영어 학습 = 9
• 2.1.2. 간접 어휘 학습과 직접 어휘 학습 = 13
• 2.1.3. L1 어휘 습득과 L2 어휘 학습 = 19
• 2.1.4. 코퍼스 언어학(Corpus Linguistics)과 어휘 연구 = 25
• 2.1.5. 어휘 교수·학습 전략 = 27
• 2.2. 어휘적 접근방식 = 35
• 2.2.1. 언어 습득에 대한 어휘적 접근방식 = 36
• 2.2.2. 어휘 항목 및 어휘구 = 39
• 2.2.3. 어휘와 문법 = 45
• 2.3. 연어의 고찰 = 49
• 2.3.1. 연어의 개념 = 49
• 2.3.2. 연어의 일반적 특성 = 55
• 2.3.3. 연어 능력(collocational competence) = 67
• 2.3.4. 연어 유형(collocation types) = 68
• 2.3.5. 연어 학습의 중요성 = 76
• 2.4. 연어 교수 전략과 교수 방법 = 78
• 2.4.1. 연어 교수 전략 원리 = 79
• 2.4.2. 연어 학습 활동을 위한 교수 방법 = 85
• Ⅲ. 사전 조사 활동 = 98
• 3.1. 현행 고등학교 영어 교과서의 연어 분석 = 98
• 3.1.1. 연구 대상 = 98
• 3.1.2. 연구 도구 및 절차 = 99
• 3.1.3. 연어 분석(collocational analysis) = 100
• 3.2. 설문지 조사 = 106
• 3.2.1. 교사 설문 조사 = 106
• 3.2.2. 학생 설문 조사 = 113
• Ⅳ. 연구 방법 = 119
• 4.1. 연구 설계 = 119
• 4.1.1. 연구 대상 및 연구 기간 = 119
• 4.1.2. 연구 과정 및 절차 = 120
• 4.1.3. 연구 도구 = 123
• 4.2. 교수·학습 활동을 위한 수업 설계 = 132
• 4.2.1. 연어 학습 과정 = 132
• 4.2.2. 수업 모형 = 134
• 4.2.3. 어휘 교수·학습 과정안 모형 = 137
• 4.2.4. 연어 유형 선정 = 141
• 4.2.5. 기타 자료 활용 = 143
• 4.3. 교수·학습 활동 방법 및 절차 = 147
• 4.3.1. 소집단 협동 학습 활동 = 147
• 4.3.2. 학습 과제의 설계와 활용 = 151
• 4.3.3. 어휘 학습 활동 방법 및 절차 = 155
• 4.4. 유형별 연어 학습 활동 = 160
• 4.4.1. 명사+명사(N+N) 유형 = 160
• 4.4.2. 형용사+명사(A+N) 유형 = 166
• 4.4.3. 동사+명사(V+N) 유형 = 171
• 4.4.4. 동사+부사(V+Adv)와 부사+형용사(Adv+A) 유형 = 178
• 4.4.5. 텍스트 내의 연어 = 184
• Ⅴ. 결과 분석 및 논의 = 191
• 5.1. 어휘 인식도 평가 = 191
• 5.2. 어휘 학습 전략 사용과 학습 활동 결과에 대한 설문 조사 = 201
• 5.3. 어휘 학습 활동 관찰 및 학생 면담 = 208
• Ⅵ. 결론 및 제언 = 220
• 6.1. 결론 = 220
• 6.2. 제언 = 223
• 참고 문헌 = 224
• ABSTRATS = 248