英语论文哪里有？本文从所有的数据分析和讨论中，作者得到了一些教学应用。首先，教师应增强将多模态语篇分析理论应用于教学的意识。多模态教学模式的关键在于注重动态模式与图片的搭配，注重音乐模式与词汇文化的融合，即各种形式的充分衔接。在很大程度上，它有助于学生树立正确的学习态度，充分调动学生学习的主观能动性。因此，教师合理使用基于多模态的词汇教学模式可以有效地吸引学生的注意力，使学生更好地理解单词。从而加深学生对词汇学习的理解、掌握和记忆。此外，学生还可以更好地整合所学内容。
Chapter One Introduction
1.3 Significance of the Study
As we can see, the students have problems in reading, spelling and rememberingthe meaning of words. Some students just mark Chinese characters to help rememberthe pronunciation of words. Others can read the words, but they have troubleremembering their spelling. Also, quite a lot of students can remember the words buthey can’t match the words with their correctly meanings. Vocabulary memory bringsthem a lot of troubles and pains. So it’s necessary to do the research.
This study combines the multimodal theory with the contents and methods ofjunior high school English vocabulary teaching, and forms a set of multimodalvocabulary teaching mode for vocabulary teaching, which not only complements andenriches the multimodal theory, but also optimizes the vocabulary teaching theory.These achievements are also the innovation and development of English vocabularyteaching method.Under the guidance of multimodal theory, combining multimodal teaching theorywith vocabulary teaching theory, this paper mainly wants to establish a set ofmultimodal vocabulary teaching mode by carrying out experiment between two classes,so as to improve students’ accuracy in memorizing vocabulary and their ability to use vocabulary, at the same time, improve their interest in vocabulary learning. Therefore,this study also has important practical significance.
Chapter Three Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
Research question is the center of a research process, the research is carried outaround it.Although a lot of research has been done on vocabulary teaching and learning, yetthe effect is not very satisfactory. The study of it is at its initiative stage. Therefore, thisthesis intends to investigate the advantages of traditional vocabulary teaching methodand multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model. To be more specific, this thesis isto find out which vocabulary teaching model is more appropriate for students’vocabulary learning. Therefore, three research questions are put forward in this thesis.
1: Can the multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model enhance thejunior high school students’ short-term memory effect?
2: Can the multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model enhance thejunior high school students’ long-term memory effect?
3: Can the multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model effectivelystimulate the junior high school students’ interest in English vocabulary learning?
The author carried out an experiment in two ordinary classes in a middle school inZibo.
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
4.1 Comparisons in Short-term Vocabulary Memory Effect
Immediate test is conducted in class on the purpose of checking whether themultimodality-based vocabulary teaching model can improve junior high schoolstudents’ short-term memory effect. Immediate test consists of three parts. The first partis distinguishing the pronunciation of words; the second part is filling in the blanks withappropriate forms of the given words; the third part is translating the sentencesaccording to the pictures. The data comparisons will be carried out from the whole testand each part of the test. The results are shown as follows:
Table 4.1 shows an overall statistics descriptions of two classes. In the immediatetest, the average immediate test score of experimental class(23.31) is significantly higher than the score of the controlled class(20.02). The difference between the means is3.29 points on a 30-point test, which shows the effect of the multimodality-basedEnglish vocabulary teaching model is better. The Std. deviation value is 2.883 inexperimental class and 3.963 in controlled class, which also shows themultimodality-based English vocabulary teaching model is better.
4.2 Comparisons in long-term Vocabulary Memory Effect
Delayed test is conducted two weeks later. The purpose is to test whether themultimodality-based vocabulary teaching model can enhance junior high schoolstudents’ long-term memory effect. Delayed test is also made up of three parts, whichare the same as the immediate test. Both the immediate test and the delayed test havethe same content, that is the three parts. But the order of questions of part one has beenadjusted. And the test time is five minutes more than that of the immediate test. The datacomparisons is carried out from the whole test and each part of the test. The results areshown as follows:
Table 4.9 shows the mean gap of the two classes is 3.62 points on a 30-point test,which is even bigger than that of the immediate test. This suggests the new vocabularyteaching model has longer effect than the traditional one. The Std. deviation valuesuggests that the distribution of score in experimental class is more concentrated.
In a word, the multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model can have a better effect in long-term vocabulary memory.
Chapter Five Conclusion
5.1 Major Findings
This empirical research explores the influence of multimodality-based vocabularyteaching model on junior middle school students’ memory effect and interest. Theauthor has found that multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model has a positiveinfluence on students’ vocabulary learning. Both quantitative and qualitative analysisshow that multimodality-based vocabulary teaching model can stimulate junior middleschool students’ interest in vocabulary learning and has effectively enhance students’memory effect. The major findings are as follows:
In terms of short-term effect, from the perspective of the test as a whole, theaverage immediate test score of experimental class(23.31) is significantly higher thanthe score of the controlled class(20.02). The difference between the means is 3.29 pointson a 30-point test. The experimental class students are significantly different fromstudents in controlled class on the score of immediate test. (t=4.502, p=0.000＜0.005).So we can see the experimental class does better in the immediate test. From theperspective of each part of the immediate test, the average score of the first part(pronunciation) of the experimental class(3.36) is a little lower than the score of thecontrolled class(3.78). The difference between the means is 0.42 points. And the t-testshows that students in experimental class were significantly different from those incontrolled class on pronunciation part score(t=-2.384, p=0.019<0.05). About the secondpart (blanking-filling), the average score of the second part (blank-filling) of the experimental class(7.91) is significantly higher than the score of the controlledclass(6.22). The difference between the means is 1.69 points. And the t-test shows thatstudents in experimental class were significantly different from those in controlled classon blank-filling part score(t=4.141, p=0.000<0.05). As for the third part(sentence-making), the average score of the third part (sentence-making) of theexperimental class(12.04) is significantly higher than the score of the controlledclass(9.80). The difference between the means is 2.24 points. And the t-test shows thatstudents in experimental class were significantly different from those in controlled classon blank-filling part score(t=3.766, p=0.000<0.05).
reference(omitted)
