本研究旨在探討單字的學習方式對增進高中生英語讀寫能力的學習效益，並針對此課程是否能增加學生的字彙、閱讀及寫作能力進行實驗研究。藉由比較單字學習的兩種方式：單字意義推論(meaning-inferred)及直接給予單字意義(meaning-given)的方式來探索在英語教學環境中，高中學生的單字習得與閱讀理解及寫作能力之間的關係。
本研究是以台南縣一家私立中學78名高三年級的學生為研究對象，個案研究主要是以實際教學及問卷方式進行。在九周八堂課的研究期間，所有受測者按照每週課程之進度做教學與測試。兩組受測者經由不同的方式習得單字。在MI組中，受測者經由推論單字意義的練習題中來推論單字的意義，而在MG組中，受測者直接經由單字意義的給予來習得此單字，在習得單字之後，兩組皆閱讀含有主要單字(target words)的選文，並回答閱讀理解問題(comprehension questions)，然後再寫一篇與選文題目相關的短文。所有受測者在字彙測驗中，均經過前測、後測及一個月後的記憶測驗(delayed-recall test)，並做問卷調查。為達到客觀性，學生的兩次寫作都藉助一個線上評分系統 (http://lextutor.ca.)，以比較學生在接受這些課程之前及之後的差別。本研究資料蒐集方面，包括課程中所進行的所有單字考試，還有學生在字彙學習、閱讀及寫作問卷(SORWA)的結果均被收集來分析且比較學生在接受這整個課程之前及之後的成績差異和對於此課程的態度。本研究的主要發現如下:
1.兩組(MI和MG)的受測者皆有獲得主要單字的知識。
2.MI組比MG組得到更多的單字知識及保留更多記憶。
3.MI組比MG組在選文的閱讀理解問題表現較好。
4.兩組(MI和MG)的受測者在寫作相關文章用字深度皆有進步。
5.MI組比MG組在寫作相關文章上運用更多主要單字。
6.兩組(MI 和MG)的受測者皆認為他們的教學法有用且適合；MI組的受測者估計他們大約習得了58%的主要單字，而MG組的受測者估計他們大約習得30%的主要單字。
7.兩組(MI 和MG)的受測者皆認為閱讀相關選文有助於他們的寫作能力，而且寫作練習有助於他們對於單字的運用。
根據本研究所得到的結果發現運用不同單字學習的方法皆會導致單字知識的增加，但是由推論單字意義來習得單字對於學生的單字記憶、閱讀理解能力及寫作能力比直接給予學生單字意義來習得單字更有效果。

This study was to investigate the effects of vocabulary learning methods on the L2 literacy development of senior high school students. In addition, the researcher explored whether the instruction enhanced the students’ vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension, and writing ability. With the two vocabulary learning methods: the meaning-inferred (MI) method and meaning-given (MG) method, the researcher would like to know the relationship among senior high school students’ vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, and writing ability.
The subjects in this study included 78 twelfth graders in a private high school in Shin-Ying, Tainan County. A nine-week study, composed of 8 forty-minute classes, was conducted. All the subjects were tested and received the instruction according to the class schedule. All the subjects in both groups acquired the vocabulary through different vocabulary learning methods. In the MI group, the subjects acquired the target words by doing some exercises that inferred the meaning of the words. In the MG group, they were given the meaning of the target words directly. They didn’t do any exercise to acquire the words. After that, all the subjects read the selected texts which involved the target words in it and answered the reading comprehension questions. After the instruction, all the subjects had to write a composition on the same theme as the selected texts. All the subjects took the vocabulary quizzes, including pretests, posttests and delayed-recall tests. An online assessment system was also used to know the improvement of their writing performance. In the data collection, all the vocabulary tests were collected. Learners’ response toward the questionnaire, SORWA, was also gathered to know their attitudes toward the instruction. The findings from the study were:
1.Students in both groups (MI and MG) gained in their knowledge of target words.
2.The MI group led to greater gains and greater retentions than the MG group.
3.The MI group outperformed the MG group on reading comprehension.
4.Students in both groups (MI and MG) made some improvement in writing the composition whose theme was the same as the selected text. Students in the MI group applied more target words than those in the MG group when writing related composition.
5.Students in both groups considered the instruction useful and appropriate. The subjects in the MI group estimated they had learned about 58% of all the target words, while the subjects in the MG group estimated they had learned about 30% of the target words.
6.Students in both groups considered that reading selected texts enhanced their writing ability and writing practice helped them apply the words more appropriately.
According to the result of the study, the two vocabulary learning methods led to the gain of the vocabulary knowledge. Moreover, acquiring vocabulary by inferring the meaning of the word is more effective on the retention of the vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing performance than acquiring vocabulary by giving the meaning of the word directly.

Aebersold, J., ＆ Field, M. L. (1997). From reading to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ajideh, P. (2003). Schema theory-based pre-reading tasks: A neglected essential in the ESL reading class. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 3(1), Retrieved April 3, 2008, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/ajideh/article.pdf
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54 (2), 153-160.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Baumann, J. F. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students’. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (2), 150-176.
Beck, I. l., Mckeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Berlyne, D. E., Carey, S. T., Lazare, S. A., Parlow, J., & Tiverius, R. (1968). Effects of prior guessing on international and incidental paired-associate learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 750-759.
Block, D. (2002). ‘McCommunication’: A problem in the frame for SLA. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 117-133). London: Routledge.
Britton, J. (1978). The composing processes and the functions of writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Brown, C. (1993). Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary: Frequency and suliency of words. In T. Huckin, M. Hayens, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.263-286). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bruton, A. (2002). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. English Language
Brynildssen, S. (2000). ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication Bloomington IN.
Carrell, P. L. (1988 a). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 101-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1988 c). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL/second language classrooms. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 239-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: What student writers take from model texts? Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 88-125.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills theory and practice (3rd ed.). FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chaudron, C. (1985). A method for examining the input/intake distinction. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.285-300). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chen, C. Y. (2006). An exploratory study of how EFL junior high school students develop L2 literacy through task-basked reading-to-writing instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Chern, C. L. (1993). Chinese students’ word-solving strategies in reading in English. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 67-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Coady, J., Magoto, J., Hubbard, P., Graney, J., & Mokhtari, K. (1993). High frequency vocabulary and reading proficiency in ESL readers. In T. Huckin, M. Hayens, & J.Coady (Eds.) Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp217-227). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dechant, E. (1991). Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale, NJ: McCormick.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Alphen a. d. Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Forlano, G.., & Holfman, M. N. H. (1937). Guessing and telling methods in learning words of a foreign language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 623-636.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 233-252.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (1999). Discussion: Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 319-333.
Garrigus, R. (1999). Design in reading: An introduction to critical reading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135.
Goodman, K. S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (Eds.), The psychology of second language learning (pp. 135-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gove, M. K. (1983). Clarifying teacher’s beliefs about reading. The Reading Teacher, 37, 75-96.
Gourgey, A. F. (2001). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 33-68). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Gouty, J.& Lid, S. (2002). Improving student writing ability through the use of teacher interventions. Master of Arts Research Project, Saint Xavier University and Skylight Professional Development Field-Based Program.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (1997). Reading and vocabulary development in a second language: A case study. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 98-121). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grace, C. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence-level translations: Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 533-545.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643-679.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 90-103.
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. New: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated writers. Theory into Practice, 41, 110-115.
Haynes, M. (1993). Patterns and perils of guessing in a second language. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 46-65). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Hirsh, D., & Nation, I. S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689-696.
Holmes, J., & Romos, R. G. (1993). False friends and reckless guessers: Observing cognate recognition strategies. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 86-107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Huang, C. C. 黃金誠 (2001). An investigation of ESP students’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. In Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching (pp.435-445). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Huckin, T., & Bloch, J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word meaning in context: A cognitive model In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.153-179). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Rovinson (Ed.), Conginition and second language instruction (pp. 258-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003) Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2006). When thinking skills trump reading skills. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 16-21.
Jodee, W. (2006). Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. RELC, 37(2), 176-190.
Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 11, 95-111.
King, M. L. (1978). Research in composition: A need for theory. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 193-202.
Kos, R., & Maslowski, C. (2001). Second graders’ perceptions of what is important in writing. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 567-584.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon..
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
Kurby, C; Britt, M. & Magliano, J. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 26(4), 335-362.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you know and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady & T.. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, M., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46, 101-135.
Lin, M. S. 林茂松 (1995). 中華民國高中高職英文教學現況比較分析。第五屆中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集（頁59-79）。台北市：文鶴。
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Mason, B. (2005). Effects of top-down and bottom-up elementary school standards reform in an underperforming California district. Elementary school journal, 105(4), 353-377.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 13-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279.
Mondria, J. A. & Boer, M. W. (1991). The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied linguistics, 12 (3), 249-267.
Moss, G. (1992). Cognate recognition: Its importance in the teaching of ESP reading courses to Spanish speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 141-158.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language learning, 52, 439-481.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In T. Carter & M. Mccarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97-110). London: Longman.
Nation, I. S. P., & Hwang, K. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System, 23, 35-41.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, J. R. & Stage, A. S. (2007). Fostering the development of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension though contextually-based multiple meaning vocabulary instruction. Education and treatment of children, 30 (1), 1-22.
Nunan, D. (2005). Practical English language teaching: Grammar. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pardo, L.S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. Reading teacher, 58(3), 272-280.
Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady ( Eds,). Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.109-129). Noeqoos, NJ: Albex.
Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 55-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peyton, J. K. (Ed.). (1990). Students and teachers writing together: Perspectives on journal writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-493.
Pulido, D. (2004). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of Topic familiarity? Language learning, 54(3), 469-523.
Qian, D. D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and decontexualization. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 120-142.
Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-307.
Qian, D. D. (2002) Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513-536.
Reid, J. M. (1993a). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reid, J. M. (1993b). Historical perspectives on writing and reading in the ESL classroom. In J. G. Carson & I. L. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 33-60). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Reid, J. M. (1994). The process of paragraph writing (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-30.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77-89.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance, 1, (pp. 573-603). New York: Academic Press.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Stoller, F. L. (2002). Content-based instruction: A shell for language teaching or a framework for strategic language and content learning? Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://www. Carla. Umn.edu./cobalt/ modules/ strategies/ stoller.html.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Van Den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. Van Den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Walters, J. (2004). Teaching the use of context to infer meaning: A longitudinal survey of L1 and L2 vocabulary research. Language teaching. 37(4), 242-252.
Walters, J. (2006). Methods of teaching inferring meaning from context. Regional language centre journal, 37 (2), 177-190.
Walz, J. (1998). Meeting standards for foreign language learning with World Wide Web activities. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 103-114.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The influence of task in reading-based L2 vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from introspective studies. In K. Haastrup & A. Viberg (Eds.), Perspectives on lexical acquisition in a second language (pp.19-59). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
Wesche, M., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative teaching, task-based and content-based language instruction. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp.207-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp.153-189). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1994). Self-selected reading and interactive vocabulary instruction: Knowledge and perceptions of word learning among L2 learner. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.