臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文內容摘要：
本研究旨在探討台灣高中英文教師對於溝通式教學的認知及在課堂運用上所產生之影響。這些有關溝通式教學的認知包括以下部分：(1) 教科書及課程設計，(2) 正確性及流利度，(3) 錯誤糾正，(4) 英語和母語所扮演的角色，(5) 溝通活動（任務）所扮演的角色，(6) 老師在溝通情境中所扮演的角色，以及 (7) 台灣高中的英語教學。此外，亦藉由單因子變異數的統計分析，來探討這些英文教師的背景因素是否會影響溝通式教學的認知。
本研究對象是26位於國立高雄師範大學暑期英語教學碩士班及四十學分班進修的現職高中英文教師。首先，這些教師接受研究者的問卷調查，以了解他們對於溝通式教學的認知。之後，其中5位目前任教於高雄縣市的高中英文教師再接受課堂觀察及訪談，以深入探究教師們的認知在英語教學上的影響。
本研究主要結果摘要如下：
1. 問卷結果顯示：高中英文教師對於溝通式英語教學抱持正面的看法，並傾向於將這些認知應用在實際的教學上。他們認為應該提供溝通式的活動、使用溝通策略、及回饋意見的方式，以利於溝通的進行及師生間的互動。這些教師們也認為在溝通的過程中，意義的表達重於文法形式、以及流利度比正確性還要重要。因此學生的文法錯誤應該在溝通互動後才糾正的。此外，當學生遇到理解上的困難時，有些教師會用母語和他們溝通。不過有些教師則會使用較簡單的英語引導學生嘗試學習活動。以上這些有關溝通式教學的認知並不會受到教師們背景因素（如教學年資…等）的影響。
2. 觀察結果顯示：5位高中英文教師中只有2位將溝通式教學應用在英語教學上。其餘3位教師則傾向於傳統的英語教學（如以文法為導向的教學…等）。因此，這些教師們的認知和實際上的教學是有差異的。
3. 觀察結果亦顯示：有3種活動（任務）在溝通式的英語教學情境中出現。第一種是課堂上有關生字、句型、及課外補充資料的口頭報告。第二種是課後單元活動的互動練習。第三種則是課文「歌劇魅影」的角色扮演。
4. 訪談結果顯示：高中英文教師在呈現溝通式教學時面臨到困難。這些困難來自於學生（如英文程度不高…等）、老師本身（如評量學生溝通能力的時間不足…等）、以及教育和行政層面（如課程進度壓力…等）。

This study aimed to examine the impacts of English teachers’ perceptions of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) on classroom practices in senior high schools in Taiwan. These perceptions of CLT embraced the following parts: (a) textbooks and curriculum design, (b) accuracy and fluency, (c) error correction, (d) the role of English and the native language, (e) the roles of communicative tasks, (f) teachers’ roles in the CLT-based classroom, and (g) the English instruction in senior high schools in Taiwan. Additionally, one-way ANOVA was used to test whether these English teachers’background information affected their perceptions of CLT.
Twenty-six senior high school English teachers, studying in the English Teaching MA Program (ETMA) and the 40-Credit Program (FCP) at National Kaohsiung Normal University (NKNU), participated in this study. First, these English teachers were required to fill in the questionnaire to look into their perceptions of CLT. Further, among them, 5 English teachers in Kaohsiung City and County were observed and interviewed to probe the effects of their perceptions on their English instruction.
The major findings are summarized as follows:
1. The survey data revealed that the senior high school English teachers tended to hold positive and favorable perceptions of CLT, and that they were willing to apply these perceptions to English teaching. The teachers reported that in communicative settings, they should facilitate communication and increase teacher-student interactions by means of communicative tasks, communication strategies, and feedback. In the process of students’communication in English, the teachers agreed that the expression of meaning was more essential than language forms, and that fluency was more crucial than accuracy. Thus, students’grammatical errors should be corrected after the interaction. Besides, when students encountered problems with comprehension, some teachers would use the native language to communicate with them. However, some teachers would use simpler English to guide students who could not understand. The aforementioned English teachers’perceptions of CLT did not seem to be affected by their background information (e.g., years of teaching experience).
2. The observation data showed that among the 5 senior high school English teachers, only 2 applied CLT to English teaching. The other 3 teachers were inclined to teach in traditional ways (e.g., the grammar-oriented model). Thus, a disparity did exist between these teachers’ perceptions and English teaching in EFL settings.
3. The observation data also manifested that only three kinds of tasks were employed in communicative English teaching. First, oral presentations of new vocabulary, sentence patterns, and extracurricular supplementary data were involved in each lesson. Second, follow-up activities required students to write down the main ideas of each lesson on worksheets after they listened to the tapes. Last, role-plays were adopted to motivate students to play different roles after they learned this lesson “The Phantom of the Opera.”
4. The interview data explained that the senior high school English teachers came across problems in implementing CLT. These problems emerged from students (e.g., low English proficiency), the teacher (e.g., little time for assessing students’communicative competence), and the educational and administrative system (e.g., pressure of curriculum schedules).

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1
1.1 Background and Motivation ...................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................... 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study ........................... 4
1.4 Research Questions ............................. 5
1.5 Significance of the Study ...................... 6
1.6 Definition of Terms ............................ 6
1.7 Limitations of the Study ....................... 9
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................... 10
2.1 English Teaching Contexts in Taiwan ............ 10
2.2 The Revision of Curriculum Standards ........... 12
2.3 Notional-Functional Syllabus ................... 14
2.4 Communicative Competence ....................... 16
2.5 Communicative Language Teaching ................ 24
2.5.1 Principles and Characteristics of CLT ........ 25
2.5.2 Theoretical Bases of Communicative Activities 28
2.5.3 Task-Based Instruction ....................... 30
2.5.4 Teachers’ Roles in CLT ...................... 31
2.6 Teachers’ Beliefs ............................. 32
2.7 The Relationship Between Beliefs and Behaviors . 34
2.7.1 Beliefs About CLT-Based Instruction .......... 37
III. METHODOLOGY .................................... 40
3.1 Research Design ................................ 40
3.2 Subjects ....................................... 40
3.3 Pilot Study .................................... 42
3.4 Instruments .................................... 42
3.4.1 Questionnaire ................................. 43
3.4.2 Classroom Observation Checklist ............... 43
3.4.3 Interview Question Protocol ................... 44
3.5 Procedure ...................................... 44
3.6 Data Analysis .................................. 47
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................... 48
4.1 Background Information of Participants
in Questionnaires .............................. 48
4.2 Subjects’ Responses to Textbooks and Curriculum
Designs, and the English Instruction in Taiwan . 50
4.2.1 Subjects’ Responses to Textbooks and Curriculum
Designs ....................................... 50
4.2.2 Subjects’ Responses to the English Instruction
in Senior High Schools in Taiwan .............. 52
4.3 Subjects’ Responses to Accuracy and Fluency,
Error Correction, TL and NL, Communicative Tasks,
and Teachers’Roles ............................ 55
4.3.1 Subjects’Responses to Accuracy and Fluency ... 55
4.3.2 Subjects’Responses to Error Correction ....... 57
4.3.3 Subjects’Responses to the Roles of TL and NL . 59
4.3.4 Subjects’Responses to the Roles of
Communicative Tasks ........................... 61
4.3.5 Subjects’Responses to Teachers’Roles in
Communicative Settings ........................ 63
4.4 Subjects’Responses to CLT-Based Instruction ... 66
4.5 Subjects’Responses to Sources of Perceptions
of CLT ......................................... 70
4.6 Background Information of Participants in
Observations and Interviews .................... 71
4.7 Observations of CLT-Based Instruction .......... 72
4.7.1 Jeff’s Classroom Practices ................... 73
4.7.2 Monica’s Classroom Practices ................. 73
4.7.3 Judy’s Classroom Practices ................... 76
4.7.4 Helena’s Classroom Practices ................. 76
4.7.5 Carrie’s Classroom Practices ................. 77
4.8 Observations of Task-Based Instruction ......... 79
4.9 Interviews with English Teachers ............... 81
4.9.1 Low Proficiency in English .................... 82
4.9.2 Lack of Motivation and Interests in
Class Participation ........................... 82
4.9.3 Little Time for Assessing Students’Communicative
Competence .................................... 83
4.9.4 Lack of Training in CLT-Based Instruction ..... 84
4.9.5 Pressure of Curriculum Schedules .............. 84
4.9.6 Grammar-Oriented Exams ........................ 85
4.9.7 Enrollment Systems of Private Schools ......... 86
4.9.8 Insufficient Class Time in English ............ 87
V. CONCLUSIONS ...................................... 88
5.1 Summary of Major Findings ...................... 88
5.2 Pedagogical Implications ....................... 90
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research ............... 92
REFERENCES .......................................... 93
APPENDIXES .......................................... 102
Appendix A Questionnaire (Chinese) .................. 102
Appendix B Questionnaire (English) .................. 110
Appendix C Observation Checklist (Chinese) .......... 120
Appendix D Observation Checklist (English) .......... 122
Appendix E Interview Question Protocol (Chinese)..... 125
Appendix F Interview Question Protocol (English)..... 126
Appendix G Worksheet of the Phantom of the Opera .... 127

Chinese References
石素錦 (Shih, S. C.) (1992)。語言功能─溝通式語言能力與英語教學研究。國民教育，33卷，1.2期，頁14-21。
石素錦 (Shih, S. C.) (1996)。語言與社會、文化的互動─兼談外語學習與社會、文化的關係。台北師院語文集刊，1期，頁1-58。
石素錦 (Shih, S. C.) (1998)。從認知心理與社會互動談兒童英語教學─根據皮亞傑與維高斯基理論談國小英語教學實務分析。第十五屆中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集，頁1-26。台北：文鶴。
石素錦 (Shih, S. C.) (2000)。從溝通式教學與任務導向教學模式談英語教學。2000年全國應用英語教學展示工作坊暨研討會論文集，頁1-22。台北：文鶴。
石素錦 (Shih, S. C.) (2001)。談國小英語教學新趨勢。敦煌英語教學雜誌，29 期，頁8-11。
林素娥 (Lin, S. E.) (2000)。 何謂溝通式教學？英語教學，24卷，3期，頁29-33。
施玉惠 (Shih, Y. H.) (1998)。 高中英文科新課程標準的特色。英語教學，22卷，3期，頁43-47。
施玉惠 (Shih, Y. H.)、周中天(Chow, C. T.)、陳淑嬌(Chen, S. J.)、朱惠美(Chu, H. M.)、陳純音(Chen, C. Y.)、葉錫南(Yeh, H. N.)（2000）。國民中小學英語教學及評量模式研究。教育部專案研究計畫成果報告。
韋金龍 (Wei, C. L.)（1998）。國小英語教師的選訓應注重品管。英語教學，23 卷，2期，頁93-94。
張碧玲 (Chang, B. L.) (2001)。國中英語教師對溝通式教學觀之教學信念研究。教育研究月刊，84期，頁37-48。
詹餘靜 (Chan, Y. C.) (2001)。以溝通式教學觀為導向之折衷教學法使用評估。第十屆中華民國英語文教學國際研討會論文集，頁185-198。台北：文鶴。
English References
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57-64.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berns, M. (1984). Functional approaches to language and language
teaching: Another look. In S. J. Savignon & M. S. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 3-23). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186-188.
Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470-501.
Brown, H. D. (1999). New vistas: Getting started, Book 1 and 2. Teacher’s resource manuals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Burns, A. (1990). Focus on language in the communicative classroom. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The second language curriculum in action (pp. 36-58). Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chang, S., & Huang, Y. K. (2001). Communicative language teaching: Senior high school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 219-227). Taipei: Crane.
Choi, S. (1999). Teaching English as a foreign language in Korean middle schools: Exploration of communicative language teaching through teachers’beliefs and self-reported classroom teaching practices. Abstract retrieved April 7, 2002, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/9941302 (UMI No. AAT 9941302)
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
College Entrance Examination Center (2001). Newly-developed multiple enrollment programs to universities. Retrieved May 2, 2002, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/web-map/map_index.htm
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From theory to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fishbein, M. (1967). A consideration of beliefs, and their role in attitude measurement. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 257-266). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Freeman, D. (1990). Thoughtful work’: Reconceptualizing the research literature on teacher thinking. Unpublished Monograph. School for International Training, Vermont.
Grossman, P., Wilson, S., & Shulman, L. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon Press.
Hsu, C. H., Hsieh, F. C., Hou, H. Y., & Jien, K. F. (2001). Learners’ attitudes toward communication-oriented instruction. Proceedings of 2001 International Conference on the Application of English Teaching (pp.83-100). Taipei: Crane.
Johnson, K. (1979). Communicative approaches and communicative
processes. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 192-205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, K. (1981). Some background, some key terms, and some definitions. In K. Johnson & K. Morrow (Eds.), Communication in the classroom: Applications and methods for a communicative approach (pp. 1-12). Harlow, U.K.: Longman Group Ltd.
Johnson, K. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1998). Authenticity. In K. Johnson & H. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics: A handbook for language teaching (p. 24). Oxford: Blackwell.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 50(3), 187-198.
Kindsvatter, R., Willen, W., & Ishler, M. (1988). Dynamics of effective teaching. New York: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16-24.
Leesatayakun, M. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Observation of the English as a foreign language classroom in Thailand. Abstract retrieved April 18, 2002, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/8803112 (UMI No. AAT 8803112)
Li, D. (1998). "It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.
Li, M. K. (1997). A new look at Communicative language teaching: Prospects for Taiwan, R.O.C. The Journal of National Chengchi University, 75, 257-283.
Lin, L. H. (2002, April 18). The implementation of English teaching in elementary schools in Taipei City. The United Daily News. Retrieved April 18, 2002, from http://be1.udnnews.com/2002/4/18/NEWS/FOCUSNEWS/EDU/785374.shtml
Longman Advanced American Dictionary. (2000). Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education Ltd.
Ministry of Education. (1995). Senior high school curriculum standards.
Morrow, K. (1981). Principles of communicative methodology. In K. Johnson & K. Morrow (Eds.), Communication in the classroom: Applications and methods for a communicative approach (pp. 59-66). Harlow, U.K.: Longman Group Ltd.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1990). The language teacher as decision maker: A case study. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The second language curriculum in action (pp. 9-35). Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Nunan, D. (2001). What is task-based language teaching? Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 66-72). Taipei: Crane.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L., Lavine, R. Z., & Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies, the communicative approach, and their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 29-39.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Paulston, C. B. (1980). Bilingual education: Theories and issues. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (English-Chinese ed.). Hong Kong: Addison Wesley Longman China Limited.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher educators (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Rivers, W. M. (1983). Communicating naturally in a second language: Theory and practice in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 494-518.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 261-277.
Savignon, S. (2001, May 19). Communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. Plenary Address Presented at the Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan.
Savignon, S. (2002a). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning (Int’l ed.). Taipei: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, S. (2002b). Communicative English teaching in Asian contexts: The challenge for teacher education. Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth Pan-Asian Conference (pp. 162-174). Taipei: Crane.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (1994). Teachers’ handbook: Contextualized language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics: Foundations of Second Language Teaching, 18, 268-286.
Swain, M. (1984). Large-scale communicative language testing: A case study. In S. J. Savignon & M. S. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching: A book of readings (pp. 185-201). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 285-295.
Valette, R. M. (1993). The challenge of the future: Teaching students to speak fluently and accurately. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 173-178.
Wang, C., & Savignon, S. (2001). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes in Taiwan. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 345-361). Taipei: Crane.
Whitley, M. S. (1993). Communicative language teaching: An incomplete revolution. Foreign Language Annals, 26(2), 137-154.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses: A taxonomy and its relevance to foreign language curriculum development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design and implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Yembise, Y. (1994). EFL teachers’ awareness of the theoretical and practical relevance of the communicative approach in junior secondary schools in the highlands of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Abstract retrieved April 5, 2002, from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/MM17188 (UMI No. AAT MM17188)