您可以在百度里搜索“元认知策略研究：二语听力理解与附带词汇习得（英文版） 艾草文学(www.321553.xyz)”查找最新章节！

　　6.4.2 Discussion of the Results for Research Question Four

　　Research Question Four asked: What is the relationship between learners' metacognitive awareness and incidental vocabulary acquisition under the four different listening conditions?

　　In Cycle 1 there were a total of 14 significant correlations out of a total possible of 120 correlations (i. e., 5 aspects x 4 groups x 6 tests) between different aspects of metacognitive awareness and vocabulary acquisition. In Cycle 2 there were a total of 10 significant correlations out of the possible 120 correlations. Overall this indicates that the learners' reported awareness of metacognitive strategies was not strongly related to the acquisition of words as a result of performing the listening tasks. In the discussion that follows, no attempt will be made to explain each significant correlation, but instead, focus will be put on the patterns of relationships between the different aspects of metacognitive awareness and incidental vocabulary acquisition.

　　(a) Planning-Evaluation

　　There was a positive correlation between Group B's reported use of planning evaluation strategies and their scores in the immediate production test in both Cycles (r=.350 in Cycle 1 and r=.377 in Cycle 2). Planning-evaluation was negatively related to Group A's and Group D's scores in the immediate form test in Cycle 1 (r=-.298 and-.314 respectively).

　　Group B differed from Group A in that it listened three times to the listening texts and from Groups C and D in that it received no training. The learners in Group A had little opportunity to either carry out any preparation or to evaluate as they listened, even if they were inclined to do so. Thus, the treatment condition of this group precluded any effective use of planning-evaluation strategies. Indeed, the negative correlation between Group A's planning-evaluation and vocabulary form scores in Cycle 1 suggests that the attempt to make use of strategies relating to this aspect of metacognitive awareness may have had a negative effect on vocabulary acquisition.

　　Groups C and D received strategy training and it is possible that the training interfered with the learners'preferred use of strategies. Indeed, in the case of Group D, the inferencing training they received is negatively related to their acquisition of form in Cycle 1. Both kinds of training may have had the effect of focusing the learners on executing the strategies they were trained to use, but neither type of training encouraged the use of planning-evaluation strategies. It is hypothesized, therefore, that for planning-evaluation strategies to have an influence on vocabulary acquisition from listening texts, two conditions need to apply: (1) the listening task must ensure adequate opportunity for learners to prepare and to evaluate, and (2) learners must be free to determine what strategies they wish to use in a listening task. These conditions were met only for Group B, in which the learners had reported greater use of planning evaluation strategies and demonstrated greater productive control of the target words than those who reported less use.

　　(b) Directed Attention

　　All the significant correlations for directed attention were positive and they all involved receptive knowledge of the target items. In other words, those learners who reported using strategies to concentrate and stay on task demonstrated a greater ability to work out the meanings of the words they did not know from context and to remember them, especially when completing the immediate posttests.

　　However, the positive correlations between directed attention and receptive vocabulary knowledge were only evident for Groups A, B and C, but no significant correlations were found for Group D. Again, the explanation may lie in the training Group D received. Inferencing training may have led the learners in this group as a whole to direct their attention to understanding the meanings of the words. To put it in another way, the training may have negated the inherent differences in learner's use of directed attention strategies. If this explanation is correct, then it suggests that inferencing training may encourage even those learners who are not naturally inclined to use directed attention strategies to do so.

　　One further point that is worth making is directed attention strategies are related to receptive vocabulary learning even when the listening task affords only one opportunity to listen to the text. Namely, whether the listening text is repeated or not does not appear to be a factor determining the utility of directed attention strategies. In this respect the results for directed attention are different from those for planning-evaluation.

　　(c) Person Knowledge

　　Person knowledge refers to the learners'evaluation of the difficulty of listening in an L2 and their perceptions of their own ability. Few significant correlations between person knowledge and vocabulary acquisition were found in this study. One explanation for this is that all the learners, irrespective of how they evaluated their listening comprehension ability, experienced difficulty in acquiring the target words in the kind of demanding listening tasks used in the study.

　　Group A's person knowledge scores were negatively related to their vocabulary form scores in the delayed test in Cycle 2. Group D's person knowledge scores were positively related to receptive word knowledge also in the delayed test in Cycle 2. In both cases, these significant correlations were only found in the delayed tests, and they seem to be difficult to interpret.

　　(d) Mental Translation

　　The significant correlations involving mental translation were all negative. That is, those learners who reported using mental translation strategies were less likely to acquire new words. However, this was only the case for the learners in Groups B and D and it occurred only in Cycle 1.

　　As for comprehension, mental translation does not appear to be an effective strategy. Using L1 to understand the meanings of unknown L2 words in a listening text does not promote either receptive or productive knowledge of the words, but rather, it interferes with vocabulary acquisition. There is plenty of evidence (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Watanabe, 1997; Schneider, Healy, & Bourne, 2002; Manyak, 2004) that translation is an effective strategy in intentional vocabulary learning. But this study investigated incidental acquisition of vocabulary. Mental translation may have been ineffective because it is not efficient in the kind of online processing that the listening tasks in this study required. It may interfere with the execution of strategies that are more effective for incidental acquisition in online processing tasks. It is possible that the learners became aware of this after Cycle 1 and therefore limited their use of mental translation in Cycle 2, where no negative correlations were found.

　　Mental translation was negatively related to vocabulary acquisition only in Groups B and D. In the case of Group A (one time listening only), the learners might have found it difficult to make use of mental translation even if they had been inclined to do so, because they were under pressure to comprehend the text immediately. In the case of Group C, the pre-listening activity of schema-raising may have minimized the necessity for online translation. In contrast, Group B was freer to use whatever strategies they were inclined to. The inferencing training of Group D focused learners' attention on vocabulary and may have caused some of them to attempt to use mental translation to compensate for the difficulty they experienced in trying to infer the meanings of the words from context.

　　(e) Problem Solving

　　This aspect of metacognitive knowledge produced the most correlations (10 in the two cycles out of a total of 24), and it was particularly strongly implicated in vocabulary acquisition for Group B (5 positive correlations). Interestingly, problem solving was negatively related to vocabulary acquisition in Group D.

　　The crucial aspects of Group B's treatment were (1) the opportunity to listen three times and (2) no strategy training. Under such conditions it would seem that those learners who report a high use of inferencing strategies are likely to be successful in incidentally acquiring receptive and productive knowledge of new words. Note that in this treatment condition learners were free to act in accordance with their preferred strategies.

　　Group D received training in the use of inferencing strategies. The effect of this mediation appears to have been to cause those learners who reported regular use of problem solving strategies to be less successful in remembering the form of the target words. Again then, there is evidence of intervention in learners'natural choice of strategies affecting how they process input for acquisition. Such intervention is designed to enhance their processing ability but it would seem that this is not always the case. Where Group B (no training) manifested positive correlations between problem solving and vocabulary acquisition, Group D manifested negative correlations in Cycle 1. However, in Cycle 2, the correlations involving Group D are positive. Perhaps second time round they were less influenced by the training they received and more inclined to rely on their own preferred strategies. 元认知策略研究：二语听力理解与附带词汇习得（英文版）