研究資料首頁-> 發表專書（含篇章）及其他著作
研究資料明細
| 專書(含篇章)及其他著作名稱 | Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development: Revisiting Hsieh(2008)/A Psycholinguistic Approach to Technology and Language Learning |
| 專書出版日期 | 2015-10-29 |
| 專書類別 | 紙本 |
| 是否為專書 | 是 |
| 使用語文 | 外文 |
| 專書是否經外部審稿程序或公開發行出版 | 是 |
| 作者順序 | 第一作者 |
| 通訊作者 | 是 |
| 出版年 | 2015 |
| 出版月 | 10 |
| 出版地 | Berlin |
| 出版者(社) | De Gruyter Mouton |
| ISBN編號 | 978-1-61451-402-2 |
| 所屬計劃案 | 無 |
| 可公開文檔 |
|
| 可公開文檔 |
|
| 可公開文檔 |
|
| 附件 |
封面版權頁目錄.pdf
|
[英文摘要] :
Abstract: The small number of published studies that has empirically compared
face-to-face (FTF) instruction against computer-assisted instruction (CAI) appears
to support superior learning benefits for CAI (cf. AbuSeileek, 2009; AbuSeileek &
Rababah, 2007; Nutta, 1998; Torlaković & Deugo 2004; cf. Hsieh, 2008 for no effects).
However, a recent critical review of these studies' internal validity (Cerezo,
Baralt, Suh, & Leow, 2013) reveals that the relative effects of this computerized
medium against FTF instruction are still unclear and calls for a closer investigation
of the cognitive processes employed while interacting with L2 data across
type of medium. Interestingly, Hsieh (2008) collected but did not report concurrent
data produced by her participants during L2 data exposure to a computerized
version of the FTF instruction (C-FTF) and CAI conditions in her published study.
This chapter seeks to address this important call by revisiting Hsieh (2008) to
qualitatively compare, from a psycholinguistic perspective, the cognitive processes,
and more specifically, level of awareness, employed in each type of
medium (C-FTF vs. CAI) regarding the L2 development of a morpho-syntactic
structure such as gustar 'to please' at the beginning level of Spanish. The findings
indicate that the features of each instructional medium clearly prompted different
levels of awareness and depth of processing. These findings also provide plausible
explanations for the non-significant differences in performances between the two
groups and for the superior gain scores on a delayed posttest for the CAI group
reported in the original study and other studies. A pedagogical implication is
provided.
