跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.238.225.8) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/09 01:28
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:邱達興
研究生(外文):Ta-hsing Chiu
論文名稱:語文能力高低學生之間英語學習風格差異之比較
論文名稱(外文):Differences in English Learning Styles Among High and Low Proficiency EFL Learners
指導教授:余光雄余光雄引用關係
指導教授(外文):Dr.Kuang-hsiung Yu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:100
中文關鍵詞:學習風格風格差異學習效益高分組低分組問卷調查英文能力測驗
外文關鍵詞:Learning StylesStyle DifferencesLearning EffectsHigh Proficiency GroupLow Proficiency GroupQuestionnaire InvestigationEnglish Proficiency Test
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:689
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:10
摘要
通常學生在學習一種新的語言時會使用一些特別的學習風格。學習風格的研究在幫助教師們分辨學生學習語言方法的不同是否會造成學習效益的不同。Oxford 和 Scarcella在1992年已經整理出五個層面的語言學習風格,它們分別是:
(1) 整體分析型,(2) 感覺偏好型,(3) 直覺/隨意和感覺/連續學習型,(4) 定位延續至終點結束型,和(5) 競爭/合作型。
本文作者選擇了三個階段的學習者作為測試對象,他們是小學六年級生、國中二年級生、和高中二年級生。在每一個階段各選二個組,一個組是國文和英文都學得較好成績也較好的同學,而另一組則為較差的同學。在此論文中,有六組的測試對象:他們就是小學A〈高分〉組、小學B〈低分〉組、國中A〈高分〉組和B〈低分〉組、以及高中A〈高分〉組和B〈低分〉組。高分組由各年級各班前五名組成;低分組由各年級各班後五名組成。此篇論文作者所使用的工具是一個問卷和英文能力測驗。
經過測驗,所發現的風格差異的比較如下:〈1〉根據問卷的得分可測知各年級的A組同學比B組同學更外向且開朗。〈2〉由於國文和英文學習能力的不同,各年級的A組同學的問卷和英文能力測驗的得分都比B組同學的更高。〈3〉各年級A組的同學在學習方面顯露更主動和積極的態度,而B組同學確顯現較消極和被動的態度。總之,學習者的學習風格的好或壞的確會影響到學習的效益和能力的提昇。
ii
Abstract
Particular learning styles are usually employed by EFL learners to learn a new language. Research of learning styles has had an essential influence on helping teachers identify ways in which learners differ in their approaches to language learning. Oxford and Scarcella (1992) have identified five key dimensions of language learning styles: (1) Analytic-global, (2) Sensory preferences, (3) Intuitive/Random and Sensory/Sequential Learning,. (4) Orientation to closure, and (5) Competition/cooperation. For this research, the writer chose three levels of learners: elementary, junior high and senior high students. And the writer selected two groups from each level: one group consists of the students who are considered as successful learners in L1 ( the Chinese language ) and L2 ( the English language), and the other group consists of the students who are less successful learners in L1 and L2. So, there are six groups of subjects, i, e., Elementary A, Elementary B, Junior A, Junior B, Senior A and Senior B. They were chosen on the basis of their grades in L1 and L2. Group A students are those who are top 5 students
in class, and are considered as successful learners with high proficiency. On the other hand, Group B students are those who are bottom 5 students in class and are considered as less successful learners with low proficiency in L1 & L2. The instruments used for this research are a questionnaire and a teacher-made English proficiency test, The findings are: (1) Group A members are more extrovert and open-minded than Group B members according to their responses of the questionnaire; (2) Group A members present much higher English proficiency than Group B members because of the difference of their learning competence in L1( English) and L2 ( Chinese); (3) Group A members show more active and progressive attitudes toward learning while Group B members are more negative and passive. Above all, whether good or bad, the learning styles of the learners will surely influence the effectiveness and proficiency of learning.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………i
Abstract (in Chinese)………………………………………………ii
Abstract (in English)………………………………………………iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………iv
List of Tables……………………………………………………….vii
Chapter One Introduction…………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Background and Motivation………………………………….1
1.2 Statements of the Problem………………………………….3
1.3 Purposes of the Study……………………………………….3
1.4 Research Questions……………………………………………4
1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………….4
1.6 Limitations of the Study……………………………………5
1.7 Definition of Terms………………………………………….5
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………8
2.2 Learning Styles……………………………………………….8
2.3 Good and Bad Language Learners………………………….10
2.4 Styles vs. Strategies of Language Learning……………12
2.5.1 Informal Self-check Lists……………………………….13
2.5.2 Formal Personality and Cognitive Style Tests…….14
2.5.3 Reading, Lectures and Discussions……………………14
2.5.4 Second Language Development in Relation to Learning Style....................................................16
2.6 Attitude and Motivation in SLA…………………………19
iv
2.7 The Critical Period Hypothesis of Language Acquisition in RelationLearningStyles………………………………………………20
2.8 The Characteristics of the Elementary School Learners and Their Learning Styles…………………….....................22
2.9 Characteristics of Middle School Learners and Their Learning Styles……….....................................23
2.10 A Korean Case Study of EFL Learning Style…………….25
2.11 Learning Styles and Learning Attitudes in Relation to Hypermedia………….......................................25
2.12 Cultural Differences in Relation to EFL Learning Style……………………....................................26
2.13 Vygotsky''s Theory in Terms of EFL Learning Style…29
2.14…Language Learning Styles and. Learning Strategies…32
2.15 Theory and Model of Language Proficiency Development34
2.16 The Mainstream EFL Learning Style……………………….35
Chapter Three Design and Methods
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………38
3.2 Subjects……………………………………………………………………38
3.3 Instruments……………………………………………………………….39
3.4 Procedures…………………………………………………………………40
3.5 Data Analysis……………………………………………………40
Chapter Four Results and Discussions
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………53
4.2 Analyses of the Subjects in Three Levels of School….53
4.3 Discussions of the Similarities and the Differences of
the Learning Styles………………………………………………63
Chapter Five Conclusions and Implications
5.1 Conclusions and Findings………………………………………75
v
5.1 Implications of the Study……………………………………….78
5.2 Suggestions for Further Studies……………………………….79
References…………………………………………………………………80
Appendix……………………………………………………………………83
Ⅰ. Letter of Consent……………………………………………….83
Ⅱ. Questionnaire in English………………………………………84
Ⅲ. Questionnaire in Chinese………………………………………85
Ⅳ. English Proficiency Test
a. For Elementary Students……………………………………………86
b. For Junior High Students………………………………………….89
c. For Senior High Students………………………………………….95
vi
References
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. Is there a natural sequence in adult second language acquisition? Language Learning, 1974, 24, 235-243.
Beebe, L. Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.)
Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983.
Bloomfield, L. Language. New York: McGraw Hill, 1933.
Beattie, M. 2001, The art of learning to teach: Pre-service teacher narratives. Upper Saddle River, N. J. Merrill.
Chang, J. 2001, Chinese speakers. In Swan & Smith, Learner English (pp.310-324). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. 2001,. Second language learning and language teaching. (3rd ed.) New York, Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. J. Chomsky''s universal grammar and second language learning. Applied Linguistics,1985.
Cummins, Swain, Nakajima, Handscombe, Green& Tran, 1984;
Dulay, H. C. & Burt, M. K. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 1974, 24, 37, 53.
Ellis, R.1994,.The study of second language acquisition. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press
Fries, C. C. Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1945.
Gamlin, P. Luther, M. & Wagner, G. 2001,. Exploring human potential: Facilitating growth in the new millenium. Toronto, Ont.: Captus University Press.
Hadley, A. O.1993, Teaching language in context. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Glenview, IL.: Addison-Wesley.
Hoff-Ginsberg. E. 1998, Is there a critical period for language acquisition? In M. Met (Ed), Critical issues in early second language learning: Building for our children''s future (pp.31-36) Glenview, IL.: Addison -Wesley.
Johnson, J. & Newport, E. 1989, Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Johnston, J. H.1984, A synthesis of research findings on middle level education. In J. H. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school education, 1964-1984 (pp.134-156. Columbus, OH: Middle School Association.
Johnston, J. H.& Markle, G.1979, What research says to the middle level practitioner. National Middle School Association, 16-17.
Krashen, S. D. Individual variation in the use of the monitor. In W. C. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Krashen, S. D. Second language acquisition and second language learning. London: Pergamon Press, 1981.
Krashen, S. D. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon Press, 1982.
Krashen, S. D., Long, M. A., & Scarcella, R. C. 1979, Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 537-582.
Lorenz, E. B., & Met, M. 1989, Planning for instruction in the immersion classroom. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
Melton, G. E. 1984. The junior high school: Successes and failures. In J. H. Lounsbury (Ed.), Perspectives: Middle school education, 1964-1984 (pp. 5-13). Columbus, OH: Middle School Association.
Met, M. 1995, Foreign language instruction in the middle schools: A new view for the coming century. In R. Donato & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime. The ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series (pp. 76-110). Lincolnwood, IL: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group.
Met, M. 1993, Foreign language immersion programs. Washington, Dc: Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 141).
Ortuno, M. M. 1991, Cross-cultural awareness in the foreign language class: The Kluckhohn Model. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 449-459.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Piaget, J. 1972, Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12.
Robinson, G. 1981, Issues in second language and cross-cultural education: The forest through the tress. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Rubin, J. What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL. Quarterly, 1975, 9, 41-51.
Seliger, H. W. On the nature and function of language rules in language teaching. TESOL. Quarteryly, 1979, 13, 359-369.
Seliger, H. W. Earner interaciton in the classroom and its effect on language acquisition. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983.
Seliger, H. 1978, Implications of a multiple critical periods hypothesis for second language learning. In W. Richie (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 11-20), New York: Academic Press.
Skutnabb-kanga & Toukomaa, 1976.
Vygotsky, L. 1962, Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top