文型学習の心理学的研究:II : 呈示の仕方による差異 Psychological research on the learning of English sentence patterns. : II : Comparison in presentation
Object : The purpose of this research to be described is to compare which is more effective acoustically the method of presentating English sentences only, or English sentences followed by Japanese sentence, and also to compare which trials are more effective for retention, five times or ten times. Procedure : The experiment has been administered to, 382 subjects in junior high school, 426 in senior high school and 742 in a women's junior college from September to December in 1966. The materials which are used for this experiment are a series of English sentence based of sentence patterns by Hornby and Fries which are composed of the same number of syllables, difficulty, frequencies and words. The order of presentation in experiment are as the following : (1) Hornby^1-Fries^1 consists of to trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English and Japanese. (2) Hornby^2-Fries^2 consists of 10 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English. (3) Hornby^3-Fries^3 consists of 5 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English and Japanese. (4) Hornby^4-Fries^4 consists of 5 trials of Hornby and Fries sentence patterns in English. The subjects for this experiment are assigned eaually to four experimental conditions with no significant difference on the bases of the result of value analysis. Results : In the comparison between English sentences and English japanese sentences on effective learning, significant difference is observed in the score of English Japanese sentences for the junior high school student in 10 trials of Hornby sentences, Concerning sex difference, boys are superior to girls with significant difference at a 1% level for the English japanese sentence group. Concerning boys and girls, the Hornby pattern English Japanese sentence group is superior to English sentence group on a 1% level significant difference. For the boys in high school, English Japanese sentences are more effective than English sentences on 0.1% significant difference level in 10 trials of Hornby sentence patterns. For both boys and girls, a significant difference of a 0.1% level is ovserved for the English Japanese sentences. For the Fries sentence patterns a significant difference is observed at 2% level in English-Japanese senteces. As for the difference in difficulties, English Japanese sentences are superior to English sentences on a 0.1% significant difference level for the senior high school students in production of Hornby sentence patterns. Concerning the most difficult sentence patterns, English-Japanese. sentence are more effective than English sentences. For the junior high school students, a significant difference is observed at a 1% level of 0.5% level in English Japanese sentence compared with English sentences as a result of the χ^2 test. In the case of 5 trials, significant differences are observed at a 5% level in English Japanese sentences compared with English sentences. In summary, for the Hornby patterns, a significant difference is observed more in high difficulties than low difficulties. However for the Fries sentence patterns, significant difference has not been observed in the highest and middle difficulties on 10 trials. But with 5 trials, the English Japanes sentences are observed significantly better than English sentence at a 0.5% level in the highest difficulties with 5 trials. In conclusion English-Japanese sentences are significantly more effective than English sentences. (5) In the comparison of retention between English Japanese sentences in the case of the Hornby sentence patterns, English Japanese sentences are recognized better than English sentences. In the case of the Fries sentence patterns differences are not recognized between English Japanese sentences and English sentences. (6) In order to investigate the degree of difficulties between Hornby and Fries sentence patterns, both of them have a high correlation concerning difficulties.
教育心理学研究 16(3), 142-156, 187-188, 1968