跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.99.222) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/04 01:13
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:邱宜敏
研究生(外文):Yi-Min Chiu
論文名稱:科技大學工學院學生專業原文書使用量研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study of Content Area English Textbook Use by TaiwaneseEngineering Undergraduates at a Technical University
指導教授:顧伯庸顧伯庸引用關係
指導教授(外文):R. Good
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄第一科技大學
系所名稱:應用英語所
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:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
論文頁數:115
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:330
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:42
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
摘要
對於第二外語是英文的台灣工學院學生而言,由於中文教科書的不足,使
用專業原文書是一個普遍的趨勢。雖然嬝狎鴗摰悇O獲取專業知識一個重要的
來源,以往的研究指出,英文嬝疚鴾j多數的學生而言有著相當高的難度。一
般而言,造成原文書嬝爭x難的主要原因可分為兩大類,而學生也常因為這兩
類原因逃避原文書的嬝炕C第一類為內在因素 (internal factors),包括學生本身
的英文程度以及他們的專業知識程度。另一類則是外在因素 (external factors),
包括原文書的可讀性 (textbook readability) 及專業科目老師的教學方式。然
而,過去少有文獻探討學生英文程度及專業原文書使用量 (textbook use) 兩者
之間的關係。本論文的目的便是在研究這兩個因素間的相關性。
本論文的研究對象為十五位就讀國立高雄第一科技大學工學院機械與自
動控制系大學部三年級的學生。在受邀成為本論文的實驗對象時,他們不僅修
同一門專業科目並使用同一本原文教科書。這些學生的英文程度分別為通識英
語課三級、四級以及五級的學生 (高科大通識英語課程共分為五個級數,最高
級數為五級而最低級數為一級)。研究過程中,學生們除了提供該科目所使用的
原文教科書作為本研究分析的基礎,同時填寫了一份問卷。另外,在本研究完
成初步原文書使用量分析後,他們當中的六個人另外接受了電話訪問。本論文
主要發現如下:
為了推測學生原文書使用情形,我們採取兩種不同的方式取得了兩種不同
嬝甽q。一種是由原文書使用量檢測量表 (Template) 所測出的表面嬝甽q
(IRD inferred reading degree)。「原文書使用量檢測量表」是本研究為了和傳統的
嬝狀膍s方式做比較而特別設計的。另一種則是以問卷方式得到的自我評估�
ii
讀量 (SRD self-reported degree)。結果發現無論是不同級數或是同一級數的學生
都有不同的表面嬝甽q (三級學生的表面嬝甽q介於3% 到 24%;四級介於
12% 到 32%;五級介於8% 到 28%之間)。有別於表面嬝甽q的結果,三個級
數學生的自我評估嬝甽q幾乎相同 (介於50%到56%之間)。在嬝玨`度上
(reading depth),學生在教科書中,尤其在是非文字部份,寫下的高負荷註解
(Heavy duty mark) 數量多過於中負荷 (Medium duty mark) 以及低負荷註解
(Light duty mark)。由於自每個級數的自我評估嬝甽q皆大過於表面嬝甽q,因
此結論由兩種不同方式取得的兩種嬝甽q之間確實有差距存在。
除了上述的結果,我們還發現不只是三個級數間,就連每個學生之間在�
讀趨勢 (reading trend) 上都存在著極大的差異。這樣的結果顯示學生的嬝祀�
勢不如我們預期中的穩定。也就是說,他們在嬝直狴赫禸瓣ㄦ|隨著章節的增
加而讀得愈來愈多或者是愈來愈少。普遍的趨勢是大部份的學生最用心讀第二
及第四章而最不用心讀第三及第六章。
不管是依據兩種嬝甽q評量工具或嬝玨`度分析的結果,都顯示學生的英
文程度和他們專業原文書嬝甽q之間只有微弱的相關性。四級學生在表面嬝�
量以及嬝玨`度上皆高過於三級和五級的學生。而五級的學生在自我評估嬝�
量上則是三個級數中最高的。
本研究發現由「原文書使用量檢測量表」所測出的嬝甽q與問卷得到的�
讀量不盡相同。因此,我們認為「原文書使用量檢測量表」比較適合用在測量
學生的教科書使用量而非嬝甽q上,而且「原文書使用量檢測量表」應該被用
來輔助而非取代其他的實驗工具。另外,兩種評量工具的結果顯示本研究的學
生似乎並沒有大量嬝炙L們的課本。這樣的結果突顯了專業科目老師告知學生
原文書嬝炙堛漱峖p何使用原文書的重要性。最後,在學生的嬝甽q和他們的
英文程度兩者間只發現微弱的相關性。儘管如此,我們相信較高的相關性或�
會在實驗人數較多的研究中被發現。如果是這樣的話,語言老師應該要不斷的
提供英文上的協助以幫助學生變得更有能力去嬝炙L們的專業原文書。如此一
來,他們就能夠透過多讀原文書的方式來獲取更多有用的專業知識。
Abstract
To most EFL engineering students in Taiwan, reading English content area
textbooks is indispensable as there is often a shortage of appropriate Chinese
textbooks. Although English textbooks are one of the most important sources of
content knowledge, previous studies have showed that such textbooks pose great
difficulty to many students. Two different factors found in the literature that lead to
reading obstacles, which result in students’ avoidance of reading their textbooks, are
internal and external factors. Two of the internal factors are students’ English
proficiency and their background knowledge; two of the external factors are
textbook readability and teachers’ instruction. Few, if any, studies, however, have
explored how students’ English proficiency levels may affect their textbook use or
annotating behavior. The present study is conducted to investigate whether there is a
correlation between proficiency and textbook reading or use.
The participants were 15 second-semester junior students from the Mechanical
and Production Engineering Department at National Kaohsiung First University of
Science and Technology (NKFUST). When they were recruited as subjects for this
study, they were taking the same content area course and were at three different
levels (levels 3, 4, and 5) in General English classes. All of them contributed the
same content textbook and filled out one-page questionnaires. After the findings
iv
were tabulated, six of them also received a follow-up interview on the telephone.
Summary of the major findings of the study is as follows:
To gauge students’ textbook use, we examined two different kinds of reading
degree by using two different approaches. One is inferred reading degree (IRD)
estimated by a template, a method designed exclusively for this study to compare
with the traditional method. The other is self-reported degree (SRD) derived from
questionnaires or so-called traditional approach. The results show that not only
students at different levels but also those at the same level have different mean IRD:
level 3 (3% to 24%), level 4 (12% to 32%), and level 5 (8% to 28%). Unlike the
findings for IRD, however, students at all three levels turned out to have very similar
SRD, ranging from 50% to 56%. With respect to reading depth, students were found
to have annotated their textbooks, especially in the non-text portions, with more
Heavy duty marks than Medium duty and Light duty marks. As SRD were higher
than the IRD for all three levels, it was concluded that there was a gap between the
two different kinds of reading degree derived from the two different assessment
approaches.
We also found great variation in the reading trends for individual students as
well as for all 15 subjects. Such a finding suggests the reading trends were not as
stable as we expected. In other words, students did not simply read more and more
or less and less as they progressed through the textbook. Instead, of the six chapters
they were expected to read, the subjects were generally found to have read Chapters
2 and 4 most while Chapters 3 and 6 least thoroughly.
The findings for the two different approaches for assessing reading degree and
that for reading depth do not support a strong correlation between students’ English
proficiency level and their textbook reading. Level 4 students were found to have
both a higher inferred reading degree (IRD) and a higher reading depth than levels 3
v
and 5. Of the three levels, in contrast, level 5 students reported the highest
percentage of self-reported reading degree (SRD).
The reading degree obtained by using the template was found to be different
from that elicited from the questionnaire. The conclusion, therefore, is that the
template is more appropriate for looking at textbook use rather than simply textbook
reading and that it should be used as a supplement to rather than an alternative to
other research methods. Moreover, according to both assessment techniques,
students in this study appear to do little reading of their textbook. Such a finding
suggests the content teachers should inform students about the purpose of using an
English textbook and how it should be used. Finally, a weak correlation was found
between students’ reading degree and their English proficiency levels. Even so, we
believe that a stronger correlation might be shown with a larger number of subjects.
If this is the case, English support should always be given by the language teachers
to help the students be more competent in reading their content area English
textbooks. By doing so, they could read more of their textbooks so as to gain more
useful content knowledge.
Table of Contents
摘要................................................................................................................................i
Abstract....................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................vi
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures and Tables ..........................................................................................xi
List of Graphs.............................................................................................................xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................1
1.1 Research Questions..............................................................................................2
1.2 Goals and Rationale .............................................................................................2
1.3 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................3
1.4 Key Words............................................................................................................3
1.4.1 Textbook Use .................................................................................................4
Reading Degree............................................................................................4
Reading Depth .............................................................................................4
1.4.2 Content Area Textbook ..................................................................................4
1.4.3 Annotation.....................................................................................................5
1.5 Organization of the Thesis ...................................................................................5
Chapter 2: Literature Review.....................................................................................7
2.1 Text Reading Difficulty........................................................................................7
2.1.1 External Factors ...........................................................................................8
2.1.2 Internal Factors .......................................................................................... 11
2.2 Textbook Use by ESL/EFL Students .................................................................14
2.2.1 Features of Content Area Textbooks ...........................................................14
2.2.2 Avoidance of Assigned Reading ..................................................................17
The English as A Native Language (ENL) Context....................................17
The English as A Foreign Language (EFL) Context..................................18
2.2.3 Text Marking or Annotating ........................................................................20
2.3 Conclusion .........................................................................................................24
ix
Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................................26
3.1 Participants.........................................................................................................26
3.2 Textbook Selection and Solicitation ..................................................................28
3.3 Textbook Readability Analysis and Data Collection .........................................29
3.3.1 Textbook Readability Calculation Formulas ..............................................29
3.3.2 Reading Degree Assessment Template ........................................................33
Distinguishing ‘Countable Quadrants’ from ‘Quadrants Not to Be
Counted’.....................................................................................................33
Distinguishing ‘Marks That Are Included’ from ‘Marks That Are
Excluded’ ...................................................................................................35
Classifying Annotation Marks into Three Groups: Heavy-Duty,
Medium-Duty, and Light-Duty Marks........................................................36
Procedure for Using the Template .............................................................37
3.3.3 Questionnaire..............................................................................................41
3.3.4 Follow-Up Interview...................................................................................41
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion ...........................................................................42
4.1 Reading Degree..................................................................................................42
4.1.1 Inferred Reading Degree.............................................................................44
4.1.2 Self-Reported Reading Degree....................................................................49
4.1.3 Inferred Reading Degree versus Self-Reported Degree..............................51
4.1.4 Reading Depth and Types of Marks ............................................................55
4.2 Reading Trend....................................................................................................58
4.3 Correlation of Reading Degree and English Proficiency...................................64
Chapter 5: Conclusion ...............................................................................................70
5.1 Summary of the Findings...................................................................................70
5.2 Pedagogical Implications ...................................................................................73
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................................75
References ...................................................................................................................79
Appendix A: Personal Information of Subjects ......................................................84
Appendix B: English Placement Test Levels ...........................................................86
Appendix C: Fry Graph ............................................................................................87
Appendix D: Flesch Reading Ease & Flesch Grade Level .....................................88
x
Appendix E: Reading Degree Assessment Template...............................................90
Appendix F: Included versus Excluded Marks.......................................................92
Appendix G: Inferred Reading Degree Checklist...................................................95
Appendix H: Chinese-Version Questionnaire .........................................................96
Appendix I: English-Version Questionnaire............................................................98
Appendix J: Chinese-Version Questions for the Follow-Up Telephone Interview100
Appendix K: English-Version Questions for the Follow-Up Telephone Interview102
xi
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 2-1 Sample Page of Text Annotation................................................................23
Figure 3-1 Example of Using Template.......................................................................39
Figure 3-2 Example of Using Template (Continued)...................................................40
Table 3-1 Attributes of Three Different Readability Calculation Formulas ............... 30
Table 3-2 Estimated Results of Reading Degree ........................................................ 32
Table 3-3 Parts to Be Evaluated versus Parts Not to Be Included .............................. 34
Table 3-4 Proportions of Countable and Uncountable Quadrants in Each Chapter.... 35
Table 3-5 Description and Examples for the Three Types of Included Marks ........... 37
Table 4-1 Number of Marked Quadrants (MQs) and Countable Quadrants (CQs) in
Each Chapter by Subject.............................................................................. 45
Table 4-2 Inferred reading Degree (IRD) and Standard Deviation (SD).................... 46
Table 4-3 Number of Pages and Teaching Hours for Each Chapter ........................... 49
Table 4-4 Mean Self-Reported Reading Degree for the Fifteen Subjects of This
Study ............................................................................................................ 50
Table 4-5 Differences between Inferred Reading Degree and Self-Reported Degree 52
Table 4-6 Total Number of H, M and, L Marks in All Six Chapters for All Subjects 56
Table 4-7 Mean Inferred Reading Degree (MIRD) for Three Levels of Subjects ...... 65
xii
List of Graphs
Graph 4-1 Reading (IRD) Trend for Level 3 Students.................................................60
Graph 4-2 Reading (IRD) Trend for Level 4 Students.................................................60
Graph 4-3 Reading (IRD) Trend for Level 5 Students.................................................60
Graph 4-4 Reading (MIRD) Trend for All Students ....................................................61
Graph 4-5 Reading Trend for MIRD and MSRD for All Students ..............................63
Graph 4-6 Mean Number of Three Marks in All Six Chapters for Three Levels ........67
References
Academic support guides: Textbook study strategies. (2003). Academic Support
Center in Cuesta College. Retrieved on September 18, 2005 from
http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/600INDEX.HTM.
Adler, Mortimer J. (1940). How to mark a book: The art of getting a liberal education.
The Saturday Review of Literature, July 6, 1940, 11-12, reprinted in The Paideia
Bulletin, IV (September-October 1988), Chicago, Institute for Philosophical
Research, 2-3.
Bukowiecki, Elaine M. (1999). Journal response to content area textbook reading.
Currents in Literacy, 2(2), 1-8. Lesley University: Hood Children’s Literacy
Project. Lesley University, 1999. Retrieved on September 12, 2005 from
http://www.lesley.edu/academic_centers/hood/currents/v2n2/currentstoc_v2n2.h
tml.
Chen, Qin & Janet Donin. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language
biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge.
The Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 209-227.
Cheng, Tzung-yu & Tsu-ing Hung. (2002). College content teachers’ attitudes toward
English reading instruction in the content areas in an EFL environment. Journal
of Hsing Kuo University of Management, 1, 25-38. 鄭宗諭 & 洪慈霙 (民
91)。大學專業老師對課堂內培養學生英文嬝爭犍帚犖A度調查。興國學報。
Chimombo, Moira. (1989). Readability of subject texts: Implications for ESL teaching
in Africa. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 255-264.
Corrigan, A., Barbara Dobson, E. Kellman, Mary Spaan, & S. Tyma. (1978). English
placement test. Testing and Certification Division of the English Language
Institute, University of Michigan.
80
Cousin, Patricia T. (1989). Content area textbooks: Friends or foes? ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Digest # 43. Retrieved on
August 2, 2005 from http://reading.indiana.edu/ieo/digests/d43.html.
Cranker, Kenneth J. (2002). What happens when Japanese freshman EFL computer
science students receive reading homework. (Tech. Rep. No. 2002-5-001).
Aizu-Wakamatsu, Japan: University of Aizu, Center for Language Research.
Dubin, Fraida & David Bycina. (1991). Academic reading and the ESL/EFL teacher.
In Marianne Celce-Murcia (Ed.). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
Language (2nd ed.), (pp. 195-215). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Eanet, Marilyn G. & Anthony V. Manzo. (1976). REAP—A strategy for improving
reading/writing/study skills. Journal of Reading, 19, 647-652.
Hirsch, Sharon F. & Anita Gabbay. (1995). A current events approach to academic
reading. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 27-30.
Hughes, Charlotte N. (2003). Research briefs: Reading across curriculum. Retrieved
on Sep. 3, 2005 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/schoolimprovement/
effective/briefs/readingacross.
Hyland, Ken. (1997). Is EAP [English for academic purposes] necessary? A survey of
Hong Kong undergraduates. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 7,
77-99.
Lee, Jeong-won & Diane L. Schallert. (1997). The relative contribution of L2
language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of
the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 713-739.
Lee, Meiling & Robert L. Good. (2003). Making English reading easier for
engineering students—Exploring the effects of reducing vocabulary processing
load on EFL learners’ comprehension of scientific texts. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Foreign Language Application Study in 2003 [2003 年外語應用
研究學術研討會], National Kaohsiung First University of Science and
Technology, Kaohsiung.
81
Lee, Meiling & Ying-hui Chen. (1999). A project for the improvement in the General
English courses. (Tech. Rep.). National Kaohsiung First University of Science
and Technology, English Department, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.
李美玲 & 陳英輝 (民88)。全校共同英語課程教學改進計畫。高雄,臺灣:
國立雄第一科技大學應用英語系。
Lin, Wei-tien. (2003). A study of TVES [Technical and Vocational Education System]
college students’ vocabulary size and the vocabulary of their English
field-specific textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University
of Science and Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan, Republic of China. 林維恬 (民
92)。科技大學學生字彙量與專業教科書英文字彙量研究。雲林,台灣:國
立雲林科技大學應用外語系碩士班碩士論文。
Liu, Shih-ming. (1995). Reading in a second language: a language problem or a
reading problem? Studies in English Language and Literature, 15, 51-64. 劉世
明 (民84)。第二外語嬝炕G語言問題或是嬝狐暋D?英語語言與文學學刊。
Muth, Denise K. (1987). Structure strategies for comprehending expository text.
Reading Research and Instruction, 27(1), 66-72.
Nise, Norman S. (2004). Control System Engineering (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Nurweni, Ari & John Read. (1999). The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian
university students. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 161-175.
Pages, Joyce M. (2002). Expository text: The choice for some, a challenge for others.
Retrieved on Sep. 3, 2005 from http://www.big6.com/showarticle.php?id=248.
Porcaro, James W. (2001). Integrating authentic materials and language skills in
English for science and technology instruction. Forum, 39(2), 30-33.
Ratekin, Ned, Michele L. Simpson, Donna E. Alvermann, & Ernest K. Dishner (1985).
Why content teachers resist content reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 28,
432-437.
Readability Calculations, version 3.7. (2000). [Computer program]. Texas: Micro
Power & Light Co.
82
Rieck, Billie J. (1977). How content teachers telegraph messages against reading.
Journal of Reading, 20, 646-648.
Smith, Frederick R. & Karen M. Feathers. (1983). The role of reading in content
classrooms: Assumption vs. reality. Journal of Reading, 27, 262-267.
Spector-Cohen, Elana, Michal Kirschner, & Carol Wexler. (2001). Designing EAP
reading courses at the university level. English for Specific Purposes, 20,
367-386.
Standal, Timothy C. & Ruth E. Betza. (1990). Content Area Reading: Teachers, Texts,
Students. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ulijn, Jan M. & Elise D. Prins. (1998). Linguistic and cultural factors in the
readability of mathematics texts: The Whorfian hypothesis revisited with
evidence from the South African context. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(2),
139-159.
Ulijn, Jan M. & Françoise Salager-Meyer. (1998). The professional reader and the text:
Insights from L2 research. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(2), 79-95.
Vacca, Richard T. & Joanne L. Vacca. (1989). Content Area Reading (3rd ed.).
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Walsh, Vincent. (1982). Reading scientific texts in English. Forum, 20(1), 24-28.
Ward, Jeremy. (2001). EST: Evading scientific text. English for Specific Purposes, 20,
141-152.
Wiriyachitra, Arunee. (1982). A scientific reading program. Forum, 20(1), 20-23.
Zhang, Hui, Mei-yu Gao, & Chun-hao Yang. (1996). A study of the use of the
content-area English textbooks in junior colleges: From the aspect of
content-area teachers. The Eleventh Technological and Vocational Education
Conference of the Republic of China (pp. 291-300). Kaohsiung: Kaohsiung
Municipal Chung Cheng High School. 張慧, 高美玉 & 楊淳皓 (民85)。專業
英文原文教材在專科學校使用情形之研究::專業科目教師的觀點。第十一
屆全國技術及職業育研討會。高雄:高雄市立中正高工。
83
Zhang, Mei-yu. (1991). Helping our students become better learners. Journal of
Taipei Institute of Technology, 24, 906-946. 張美玉 (民80)。學生科技英文�
讀困擾之探討。台北工專學報。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top