臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討文章結構圖對於以英語為外語的學生學習英語聽力之影響。研究的主要目的是以實驗的方式探討文章結構圖是否對台灣的大學生在聽英文學術文章時有所助益。
本實驗共歷時一個月，受試者為一百一十一位從三個不同科系中挑出的大一新生。實驗採拉丁方格的設計，其中包括了四篇文章及四個實驗組。為了要找出提供文章結構圖的最佳時間，實驗共分三個實驗組，分別為聽前、聽時、聽後，另外還有一組控制組。在每次聽完一篇文章後，受試者必須做一份有十題選擇題的題目以評量其理解程度，外加一份使用策略的問卷。而在本實驗的最後，還有一份問卷詢問學生對文章結構圖用於幫助聽力的感想。
此研究探討的問題共有以下四項：一、文章結構圖對英語聽力有無幫助。若有，在聽前、聽時、或聽後提供會最有效果；二、四個實驗組的受試者有無使用不同的聽力策略；三、聽力較好的學生和聽力較差的學生在策略的使用上有無不同；四、學生對於用文章結構圖來幫助英語聽力的態度為何。
研究結果顯示：一、文章結構圖的確對大一新生聽英文學術內容的文章有幫助。但是，提供此圖的最佳時機還未在本研究中得到證實。二、比較四個實驗組的策略使用結果發現有八項策略在使用的頻率上達到顯著的差異。這八項策略分別為：策略2-1《努力記下整張圖形結構》、策略2-2《背下圖中的所有單字》、策略2-3《選擇重要的單字記起來》、策略2-4《猜測文章可能的內容》、策略2-5《想出文章的可能架構》、策略3-3《回想圖形的架構幫助記憶》、策略3-4《回想圖形中的單字回答》、策略3-5《隨便亂猜》。三、比較聽力較好的學生及聽力較差的學生的測使用結果發現有六項策略在使用的頻率上達到顯著的差異。這六項策略分別為：策略1-1《努力記憶文章中的細節》、策略1-8《只用英文思考》、策略2-1《努力記下整張圖形結構》、策略2-4《猜測文章可能的內容》、策略3-1《回想剛剛所聽到的內容》、策略3-5《隨便亂猜》。四、問卷的結果顯示，學生對於文章結構圖用於幫助英語聽力普遍給予正面的評價。他們大部份相信文章結構圖對英語聽力有助益並且希望老師可以在聽力課上使用。然而，有少部份的學生表示使用文章結構圖仍然有一些缺點，例如在聽時看文章結構圖容易分心。

This study investigated the influence of semantic maps on EFL students'' listening comprehension. The purpose of the study was to discover whether semantic maps could be used as a listening aid in helping university students in Taiwan to better comprehend academic spoken texts.
The subjects in the one-month experiment were 111 freshman students selected from three different departments. The experiment, based on the Latin Square Design, had four listening texts as materials and also four treatment groups. To examine the most effective time to provide the semantic maps, pre-listening, while-listening, and post-listening treatments were conducted along with a control group which did not have the semantic map. Following each listening text, a ten-item multiple choice comprehension test was administered to test the students'' understanding. Questionnaires asking about students'' strategy use were distributed immediately after the tests, and finally a questionnaire eliciting students'' attitudes toward using the semantic maps in helping their listening was distributed at the end of the experiment.
The four research questions explored in this study were: (1) Can semantic maps help EFL students'' listening comprehension? If yes, when is the most effective time to provide them - before listening, during listening, or after listening? (2) Are there any differences in strategy use among the four treatments? (3) Do good listeners and poor listeners apply different strategies when performing the listening tasks? (4) What are the students'' attitudes toward using semantic maps in listening?
The findings specific to the research questions in this study were: (1) Semantic maps did help freshman students'' listening comprehension when listening to academic spoken texts. However, the most efficient time to provide the semantic maps was not determined by this study. (2) In the comparison of the strategy use among the four treatments, eight strategies (Strategy 2-1 "memorize the whole structure of the map", Strategy 2-2 "memorize every word on the map", Strategy 2-3 "select important words on the map to memorize", Strategy 2-4 "predict or recall the content of the speech", Strategy 2-5 "organize the structure of the speech", Strategy 3-3 "recall the structure of the map to help memorization", Strategy 3-4 "recall the key words of the map to help memorization", and Strategy 3-5 "randomly choose an answer") were shown to be used significantly differently. (3) In the comparison of the strategy use between good and poor listeners in this study, six strategies (Strategy 1-1 "memorize the details of the speech", Strategy 1-8 "think only in English", Strategy 2-1 "memorize the whole structure of the map", Strategy 2-4 "predict or recall the content of the speech", Strategy 3-1 "recall the content of the speech", and Strategy 3-5 "randomly choose an answer") were shown to be utilized significantly differently. (4) In the survey asking about students'' attitudes toward using the semantic maps as listening aids, students generally showed positive attitudes. They mostly believed that semantic maps could help their listening comprehension and they would like their teachers to use them to train their listening. However, some students pointed out that using the semantic map might have some disadvantages.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
CHINESE ABSTRACT................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study................................................................................1
1.2 Purposes of the Study.....................................................................................2
1.3 Research Questions........................................................................................3
1.4 Definition of Terms........................................................................................3
1.5 Significance of the Study................................................................................4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................5
2.1 Studies on the Review of Listening Research...................................................5
2.2 Studies on Listening and Learning Strategies...................................................7
2.3 Studies on the Use of Semantic Maps............................................................11
2.4 Summary.......................................................................................................17
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................................................18
3.1 Subjects.........................................................................................................18
3.2 Materials and instrument...............................................................................19
3.2.1 Materials.............................................................................................19
3.2.2 The Michigan Listening Test..............................................................20
3.2.3 Comprehension Test...........................................................................20
3.2.4 Questionnaires....................................................................................21
3.3 Experimental Design.....................................................................................22
3.3.1 Grouping............................................................................................22
3.3.2 Treatments..........................................................................................22
3.3.3 Latin Square Design............................................................................23
3.3.4 Procedure............................................................................................23
3.4 Data Analysis.................................................................................................26
3.4.1 The Michigan Listening Test...............................................................26
3.4.2 Comprehension Tests..........................................................................26
3.4.3 Questionnaires.....................................................................................26
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................28
4.1 The Comprehension Tests.............................................................................28
4.2 Questionnaire 2..............................................................................................33
4.2.1 Strategy Use in Total............................................................................34
4.2.2 Strategy Use among Treatments..........................................................39
4.2.3 Strategy Use between Good and Poor Listeners..................................52
4.3 Questionnaire 3.............................................................................................60
4.4 Summary of the Results...............................................................................70
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS...............................................................72
5.1 Conclusion and Summary of the Study.........................................................72
5.2 Summary of Results in Answering the Four Research Questions................74
5.2.1 The First Research Question.................................................................74
5.2.2 The Second Research Question.............................................................76
5.2.3 The Third Research Question................................................................79
5.2.4 The Fourth Research Question..............................................................81
5.3 Implications of the Study...............................................................................84
5.4 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................85
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research..................................................................86
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................88
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................92
A Transcript of Text A "Taboos"..................................................................................92
B Semantic Map of "Taboos"........................................................................................93
C Comprehension Questions for "Taboos"...................................................................94
D Questionnaire 1..........................................................................................................96
E Questionnaire 1 (English Version).............................................................................97
F Questionnaire 2...........................................................................................................98
G Questionnaire 2 (English Version).............................................................................99
H Questionnaire 3.........................................................................................................100
I Questionnaire 3 (English Version)..............................................................................101
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Treatments...............................................................................................................23
3-2 Latin Square Design.................................................................................................23
3-3 Experimental Procedures..........................................................................................25
4-1 ANOVA for Semantic Maps...................................................................................29
4-2 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENT (LSD).....................................................................29
4-3 Post Hoc Tests TEXTS (LSD).................................................................................31
4-4 Reliability Analysis - Scale (Alpha)..........................................................................32
4-5 Results of the Total Amount of Strategy Use............................................................35
4-6 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-1).....................................44
4-7 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-1).......................44
4-8 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-2)......................................45
4-9 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-2)........................45
4-10 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-3)....................................46
4-11 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-3)......................46
4-12 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-4).....................................47
4-13 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-4).......................47
4-14 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-5).....................................48
4-15 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 2-5).......................48
4-16 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 3-3).....................................49
4-17 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 3-3).......................49
4-18 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 3-4).....................................50
4-19 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 3-4).......................50
4-20 ANOVA by Treatment (Dependent Variable: Strategy 3-5)......................................51
4-21 Post Hoc Tests TREATMENTS (Dependent Variable: Strategy 3-5)........................51
4-22 Descriptive Data of the strategy use for good and poor listeners................................53
4-23 T-test for the strategy use of good and poor listeners.................................................58
4-24 Result of Question 1 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................61
4-25 Result of Question 2 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................63
4-26 Result of Question 3 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................65
4-27 Result of Question 4 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................65
4-28 Result of Question 5 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................66
4-29 Result of Question 6 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................67
4-30 Result of Question 7 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................67
4-31 Result of Question 8 in Questionnaire 3.....................................................................68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4-1 Total Strategy Use........................................................................................................36
4-2 Good & Poor Listeners'' Strategy Use for Strategy I....................................................55
4-3 Good & Poor Listeners'' Strategy Use for Strategy II...................................................56
4-4 Good & Poor Listeners'' Strategy Use for Strategy III..................................................57

Amer, A. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on the
reading comprehension of scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13
(1), 35-45.
Bacon, S. M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing
strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening.
The Modern Language Journal, 76 (2), 160-178.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL
Quarterly, 19 (4), 727-752.
Chamot, A. U. & Kupper L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language
instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22 (1), 13-24.
Chang, Y. L., Chang, T. S., & Kuo, C. H. (1995). Listening difficulties and learner
strategies of non-native speakers. In C. F. Lee (Eds.), Selected Papers from
The Ninth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic
of China (pp. 145-158). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chao, Y. J. (1999). EFL listening strategies by English majors in Taiwan. In
Department of English National Changhua University of Education (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning
in the Republic of China (pp. 465-479). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chien C. & Wei, L. (1998). The Strategy use in listening comprehension for EFL
learners in Taiwan. RELC Journal, 29 (1), 66-91.
Chung, J. (1998). The effects of advance organizers and captions on teaching
listening. In J. E. Katchen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the
Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching: Volume I (pp. 361-371).
Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Davis, Z. T., & McPherson, M. D. (1989). Story map instruction: A road map for
reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43 (3), 232-240.
Dunkel, P. (1991). Listening in the native and second/foreign language: Toward
an integration of research and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 431-457.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller L. (1992). Student perceptions, problems and strategies in
second language lecture comprehension. RELC Journal, 23 (2), 60-80.
Johnson, D. D., Pittelman, S. D., & Heimlich, J. E. (1986). Semantic mapping. The
Reading Teacher, 39 (8), 778-783.
Ku, P. (1998). Strategies associated with listening comprehension of EFL students in
Taiwan. In J. E. Katchen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh
International Symposium on English Teaching: Volume II (pp. 581-591). Taipei:
The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Lee, H. L. (1997). A study of the listening comprehension strategies of junior
college EFL students in Taiwan. In Department of English National Taiwan
Normal University (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on English
Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 393-412). Taipei: The
Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Long, D. R. (1989). Second language listening comprehension: A schema-
theoretic perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (1), 32-40.
Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading
comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (2), 196-204.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Olivares, R. A. (1993). Using the Newspaper to Teach ESL Learners. Newark:
International Reading Association, Inc.
O''Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension
strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10 (4),
418-437.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should
Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R. L. (1992/1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and
ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 18-22.
Oxford, R. L. (1993a). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187.
Oxford, R. L. (1993b). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System, 21 (2),
205-211.
Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Story maps improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 38
(4), 400-404.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research.
The Modern Language Journal, 78 (2), 199-221.
Ruhe, V. (1996). Graphics and listening comprehension. TESL Canada Journal, 14
(1), 45-60.
Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading
comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The Reading
Teacher, 38 (1), 22-29.
Stahl. S. A., & Vancil, S. J. (1986). Discussion is what makes semantic maps work in
vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 40 (1), 62-67.
Tang, G. (1992). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on
ESL reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (2),
177-195.
Tang, G. (1992/1993). Teaching content knowledge and ESOL in multicultural
classrooms. TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 8-12.
Teng, H. (1997). An investigation of EFL listening strategies by Taiwanese
college students. In J. E. Katchen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the
Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 509-520). Taipei:
The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The Cinderella of communication strategies: Reception
strategies in interactive listening. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (4),
494-505.
White, C. J. (1996). Note-taking strategies and traces of cognition in language
learning. RELC Journal, 27 (1), 89-102.