跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.104.206) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/23 17:53
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:吳柏賢
研究生(外文):PO-HSIEN Wu
論文名稱:利用IWiLL教學承轉連接詞對於英語寫作能力的影響研究
論文名稱(外文):Efficacy of the Instruction of Connectors On English Writing Proficiency Through IWiLL
指導教授:周見賢周見賢引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chien-hsien Chow
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:玄奘大學
系所名稱:應用外語系碩士班
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:100
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:104
中文關鍵詞:重要性連接詞連貫性英語能力IWiLL承轉詞連接詞自信心學習者承轉連接詞
外文關鍵詞:connectorsconjunctionstransiitonstransitional connectivesIWiLL
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:282
  • 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:1
本研究主要探討和檢驗聯繫詞教學對非英語主修的大一生在寫作品質上的影響和他們如何認知學習聯繫詞對第二外語作文的影響。由於連接詞和承轉詞對內文的重要性,因此協助學習者建立這方面的語言知識是迫切的。為了修補學習者在聯繫詞上的缺乏,帶領學習者在連接詞和承轉詞上多付出心力是必須的。IWiLL平台因此被用來使這目標更有效旅的達成。
參與本研究的實驗對象由北部某私立大學124位土木工程系大一生所組成,其中一班61人為控制組,其餘63人為實驗組,且皆選取2010年的下學期春季的讀寫研究課程。質性研究的資料蒐集來自於教學前後的寫作測驗;量化研究的資料蒐集則由前後測的問卷調查,寫作測驗、英文聯繫詞能力問卷,聯繫詞測驗,以及訪談。電腦輔助策略也被用在實驗組課程中以增進學習聯繫詞之學習。
根據統計,有實施聯繫詞教學和運用IWiLL線上練習的實驗組在後側中達統計上顯著的進步。另外,根據前後側寫作分析上,也顯示寫作品質的整體進步。同時,寫作的進步和連貫性也有顯著的進步。量化結果顯示學習者不僅對於聯繫詞的運用及認知大大的進步,在英文寫作的自信心也隨之提高。
研究結果建議,於此種建構式學習下,對於聯繫詞的教學和寫作有顯著的成效和突破,透過IWiLL的線上學習環境和工具並配合運用在正規的寫作課程上可同時建立寫作技巧及史學習更容易。另外,本研究同時也鼓勵其他科技領域的寫作教師對於標準課程的規劃可進一步的結合。

關鍵字:承轉連接詞,連接詞,承轉詞,IWiLL
This research aims to explore and examine the efficacy of the instruction of connectors on non-English major freshmen’s EFL writing quality and how non-English major freshmen perceive the efficacy in learning connectors in EFL writing. Seeing the importance of how these connectors of conjunctions and transitional connectives play in a text, practitioners are thus urged to assist learners in building this portion of language knowledge. To remedy the unsatisfying lack of instruction on connectors and to suffice the fundamental necessity, it is thus inevitable to guide learners to pay more heed to the role of transitional conjunctions and connectives in a text. With the hope to achieving the goal, the online platform IWiLL (Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning) was incorporated with the belief to better cater to learners’ individual learning pace and to make learning more efficient.
The participants in this study were one hundred and twenty-four students from the Department of Civil Engineering enrolled in the English Reading and Writing course offered by their program at a university of in Northern Taiwan in the spring semester, 2010. The 124 students were of two different classes; one class of 61 students was randomly assigned as a control group and the other 63, as experimental group. This study has followed a quantitative and qualitative experimental model, using a two group pretest-posttest design. A computer-assisted learning strategy in learning the English connectors for the improvement of coherence in essay writing was embedded into the curriculum of the experimental group’s English Reading and Writing class. The effects on the participants’ knowledge of English connectors and their writing proficiency were then measured with statistics software SPSS. Finally, opinions of and attitudes toward the implementation of computer-assisted learning strategy in learning the English connectors were elicited via a questionnaire as well as an interview.
The results of the post-instruction connector knowledge assessment were significantly enhanced after the subjects of the experimental group engaged in the connector instruction designed to build learners’ connector use in writing. As assumed, the instruction of connector use, through the in-class sessions and IWiLL online practices, made positive improvement on the subjects’ writing quality in the experimental group. In light of the promising findings, the connector acquisition is highly correlated with the development of writing. Additionally, results compiled from the questionnaires and the post-study interview denoted that the subjects not only greatly raised their perceptions towards the effective connector employment but also boosted their confidence in writing. Furthermore, online practice via IWiLL was proved to be workable as well, particularly benefiting learners on the convenience access to the materials so as to schedule their individual learning progress and to ease their learning anxiety.
The findings of this research have arguably shed light on the efficacy of connectorinstruction with the E-learning through IWiLL to promote writing proficiency and, due to its successful implementation, can be further incorporated into a standard writing course to assist EFL learners in developing their writing skills and to pace their learning with ease at the same time. However, a longitudinal study is strongly recommended so that learners could build up a profile both instructors and learners could refer to constantly by reviewing their prior errors. Lastly, connector practices designed in a variety pf genres are highly suggested for future research to observe actual development in the connector employment of learners’ writing.

Key words: Connectors, Conjunctions, Transitional Connectives
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ENGLISH ABSTRACT ……………………...…………………………….......................i
中文摘要……………………...…………………………….............................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....…………………………........................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………......................vi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..……………………...…………………...............1
1.1 Background of the Study……………….......................………...……….……......1
1.2 Purpose of the Study……………..………………………...…………..…….…....3
1.3 Research Questions…………………………………….………………….……....4
1.4 Significance of the Study…...…………………………………………………..…4
1.5 Definition of Terms…………….……………………………………………..…...5

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW.……………...……………...………..7
2.1 Online Learning………………………………………….……………..…………7
2.2 Computer and Technology Evolution on Language/Writing Assistance..........…...9
2.3 The Instruction of Writing………………………...……….……….…...……......11
2.4 The Design of Online Writing Materials/Online Courses..……………………... 13
2.5 The Role of Conjunctions in Writing………………………………….………....16
2.6 Research into Connectors in EFL Writing...……………………………………..17

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY...………..………………………..…..……....20
3.1 Participants……………………...………...…....…..…..........................................21
3.2 Intervention and Materials…....................................................................................22
3.2.1 The Intervention…………………………………………………………..…22
3.2.2 Construction of the Instruction Plan……………………………………..….23
3.2.3 The Exercises……………………………………………………………..….26
3.3 Instruments.…………………………….……………………………………….....26
3.3.1 Pretest and Posttest on English Connectors……………………………….....26
3.3.2 Pretest and Posttest on Writing Proficiency……………………………….....27
3.3.3 Questionnaire………………………………………………………………...28
3.3.4 Interview………………………………………………………………….....28
3.4 Procedures and Data Collection…….…………………………….......………...... 29
3.6 Data Analysis………………………………………….……………………..…....31

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………….……...........…. 32
4.1 Quantitative Results and Analysis for Research Question 1…………………....…33
4.1.1 Pretest and Posttest on English Connectors….………………………..….....33
4.1.2 Accuracy Rate Analysis of the Results of Connector Pretest and Posttest.....36
4.1.3 Pretest and Posttest on Writing Proficiency..…………………………. ...….40
4.1.4 Correlation between the Results of the Connector Tests and
the Writing Tests……………………………………………………..….….41
4.2 Quantitative Results and Analysis for Research Question 2 ....……..……………42
4.2.1 Reliability and Validity of the Questionnaire ……………………………....43
4.2.2 Learners’ Perceptions of English Connectors and English Writing………...45
4.3 Qualitative Results and Analysis for Research Question 2 ..…..……..…..............53
4.3.1 Learners’ Attitudes toward the Use of Connectors………………………….53
4.3.2 Difficulties Learners Encountered in Writing…………………….………...54
4.3.3 Advantages and Drawbacks of the Incorporation of IWiLL………………..55
4.3.4 Components Learners Consider Essential in Writing………………………56
4.3.5 Difficulties Learners Encountered in Learning Connectors………………..57
4.3.6 Effects of Connector Learning with IWiLL on Writing Skills……………...57
4.3 Summary of the Findings and Discussion………………………………………..58

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION………………………………….………...….…....60
5.1 Summary of the Major Findings……………………………………………….….60
5.1.1 Relationship between Connector Instruction and Writing Quality………….60
5.1.2 Learners’ Perceptions of the Connector Instruction via IWiLL……………..62
5.2 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………….........63
5.3 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………….….…64
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………………….65

REFERENCES………………………………..…...................….....................................67

APPENDICES
Appendix A The Interface of IWiLL Online Exercise……………....………….…...74
Appendix B Online Exercises Assigned in the Six Units……………….………......75
Appendix C Correct/ Incorrect Choice Test of Connectors……………………........89
Appendix D Gap-filling Test of Connectors...……………………...…….................92
Appendix E Writing Proficiency Task............................…………………............. ..95
Appendix F Questionnaire- Learners’ Perceptions of the Use of English
Connectors.............................................................................................96
Appendix G Interview Questions...………................................................................99
Appendix H Students’ Pretest and Posttest Writing Samples………...…………….100
REFERENCES

Applebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. In Petrosky and Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing: Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, Chapter 6, 95-113.
Barker, (2002). “Developing External Students’ Graduate Qualities: How Can Current
Practice Be Improved?” Presented at the 2nd International Lifelong Learning Conference, in Rockhampton, Queensland
Biber, D., Johansso, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate student. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 59-68.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,18 (1), 32–42.
Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiburg, K. (2003). Technology and teaching English language learners. Boston: Pearson Education.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Chao, Y.C. (2004). Spoken language used in L2 writing: A transitional development? The Selected Papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (Vol. II, pp. 18-26). Taipei, Crain.
Cheryl W. C. (2006). The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(1), 113-130.
Colomb, G.G., & Simutus, J.A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives 203-222. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chong, S-M(1998). Models of asynchronous computer conferencing for collaborative learning in large college classes. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators (pp. 157-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Corich, Kinshuk, & Hunt (2004). Assessing discussion forum participation: In search of quality. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(12), 3-12.
Crismore, A. (1980). Student use of selected formal logical connectors across school level and class type. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED203306
Dede, C. (1996). Distance learning-distributed learning: Making the transformation. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(7), 80-88.
Fisher, A. T., Sonn, C. C., & Bishop, B. J. (2002). Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications. New York: Plenum.
Folse, S. K., Mahnke, M. K., & Williams, L. (2003). Blueprints 2: Composition skills for academic writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal, 5(l), 12-14.
Graves, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). Writing, teaching, learning: A sourcebook. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative email exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 46–70.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Interweaving assessment and instruction in college ESL writing classes. College ESL, 4(1), 43-55.
Hiltz, R. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104
Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1 (1), 1-12.
Irizarry, R. (2002). Self-efficacy and motivation effects on online psychology student retention. USDLA Journal, 16, 55-64.
John, A. M., & Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1 (1), 13-28.
Katz, E., & Brent, Sr. (1968). Understanding connection. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 000(001), 0501-0509.
Liou, H.S., Wang, S. H., & Hung-Yeh, Y. (1992). Can grammatical CALL help EFL writing instruction? CALICO Journal, 10(1), 23-43.
Mackinlay, K. (1999). Planning to use email to support the learning process. Retrieved June, 30, 2006, from: http://www.globaled.com/articles/MacKinlayKarelena2000.pdf
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
McClure, E. F., & Steffensen, M. S. (1985). A study of the use of conjunctions across grades and ethnic groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 217-236.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
Narita, M., Sato, C., & Sugiura, M. (2004). Connector usage in the English essay writing of Japanese EFL learners [Electronic Version]. Tokyo: Nagoya University.
Nunez del Prado et al. (1993). The significance of CP to the pro-drop parameter: An experiment study comparing Spanish and English. In Clark, E. (Ed.). The Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Child Language Research Forum, (pp. 443-460).
Stanford University, CSLI.
Nunez del Prado et al. (1994). Subordinate CP and pro-drop: evidence for degree learnability from an experimental study of Spanish and English. In Gonzalez, M. (Ed.). Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society Annual Child Language Research Forum, (pp. 141-159). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Owens, R.E. (1996). Language development: An introduction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Peregoy, S.F., & Boyle, O.F. (2001). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Rheingold, H. (2000). Community development in the cyberspace of the future. In D. Gauntlett (Ed.), Web studies: Rewiring media studies for the digital age (pp. 170-178). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Singhal, M. (1998). The Internet and foreign language education: Making the most of the information superhighway. Language Education, 26(2), 39-125.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Skinner, B. and R. Austin. (1999). Computer conferencing—does it motivate EFL students? ELT Journal, 53(4), 270-77.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warden, & Chen, (1998). The application & impact of PC-based software in evaluating Taiwan students' writing error types. The Journal of Chaoyang University of Technology, Vol. 3, 215-225.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2&3), 7-27.
Warschauer, M. (2002). A review of ‘Language and the Internet by David Crystal.’ Education, Communication, and Information, 2(2), 241-244.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Of digital divides and social multipliers: Combining language
and technology for human development. Information and communication technologies in the teaching and learning of foreign languages: State of the art, needs and perspectives (pp. 46-52). Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
Wartchow, K., & Gustavson, L. (1999). The art of the writer: An aesthetic look at the teaching of writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
White, L. (1985). The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language learning, 35, 47-62.
Wible et al. (2001). A web based EFL writing environment: Integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers and Education, 37, 297-315.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N.L, & Lin, H.L. (2003). Bootstrapping in a language learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 90-102.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N. L., & Liu, A. (2001). An Online Writing Platform for Language Learners. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(3), 278-89.?
Wing, C.S. (1982). Children’s comprehension of pragmatic concepts expressed in “because”, “although”, “if” and “unless.” Journal of Child Language, 8, 347-365.
Yang, N. D. (2004). Using MyAccess in EFL writing. The Proceedings of 2004 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 550-564). Taipei: Ming Chuan University.
Yeh, J. I. (2003). The effects of the motivation and listening strategies on the English listening comprehension of junior high EFL students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top