lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Effektivität des Wortschatzerwerbs: Eine komparative Untersuchung von zwei Methoden
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of Languages.
2017 (German)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 60 credits / 90 HE creditsStudent thesisAlternative title
Efficiency of vocabulary acquisition : A comparative study of two methods (English)
Abstract [en]

In this study, the didactic effectiveness was compared between two methods of vocabulary

acquisition in a foreign language. The source language was Swedish and the target language

was German. The number of pupils who participated in the study were 64. The pupils had

mixed experiences in German as a language, but all should be considered as beginners. The

first acquisition method studied was a traditional gloss list, with 21 words in German and with

a corresponding Swedish translation. The second acquisition method was constructed as 21

multiple-choice questions, that were presented in random order over the internet. Each

question consisted of translating a Swedish word into German. The pupils were given four

different choices in German. The pupils were then given the task of choosing the right

alternative. Regardless of whether the answer was right or wrong, they always received

instant feedback on the correct alternative of the four answers. In order to prepare them self

before evaluation, the pupils received the words for each method a couple of days in advance.

Each method was prepared and evaluated on a separate occasions. Both methods were

evaluated by a written gloss test in which pupils translated the 21 Swedish words into

German. Subsequently, the effectiveness of each method was evaluated by examining the

result on the written tests. To confirm the results of the two glossary tests, pupils were given a

questionnaire, in which they could give pro and contra on the two methods. The study shows

that the pupils achieved a higher result with the glossary list in paper form than with the

digital multiple choice questions. This is also confirmed by the questionnaire, where a

majority of the pupils stated that they felt, that the glossary list worked better than the

multiple-choice questions as a method for vocabulary acquisition.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. , p. 38
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-65970OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-65970DiVA, id: diva2:1117750
Subject / course
German
Educational program
Supplementary educational programme, 90 credits
Presentation
2017-05-19, Linneuniversitetet (Online), P G Vejdes väg HUS F, Växjö, 12:05 (German)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2017-08-18 Created: 2017-06-29 Last updated: 2017-08-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(537 kB)86 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 537 kBChecksum SHA-512
abe2ffe808ada1f3748b6a75a4ecf5f52405778bf5484900b2663ee6eed36fce30df6bb7b9fc5d892eb63abfc5b628c44d023c872cf87bc2b73d18a8472ad2ee
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Witte, Sebastian
By organisation
Department of Languages
Didactics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 86 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 93 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf