跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.20.240) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/24 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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:凃季庭
研究生(外文):Ji-ting Tu
論文名稱:高雄市國小高年級學童的英語學習策略
論文名稱(外文):A STUDY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES USED BY PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN KAOHSIUNG
指導教授:李翠玉李翠玉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tsui-yu Lee
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:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:英文
論文頁數:107
中文關鍵詞:語言學習策略性別語言能力英語學習時間
外文關鍵詞:Language Learning StrategyGenderProficiency LevelYears of English Learning Experiences
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:234
  • 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:4
本研究旨在探討國小高年級學童的英語學習策略及性別、學習成就與英語學習時間對使用學習策略的影響。本研究對象為198位高雄市某公立國小五、六年級學童。本研究同時採用質化與量化兩種研究方法。量化研究的工具為Oxford (1990) 的語言學習策略量表,問卷資料則透過描述性統計、獨立樣本t考驗及單因子變異數分析來執行相關量化統計。質化資料則以實作式晤談為主,從高成就與低成就兩組學生中隨機取樣,各選八位學生接受訪談。
本研究主要發現如下:
一、國小高年級學童的學習策略平均分數為中等,顯示國小學童有時候會使用英語學習策略。在六類英語學習策略中,高年級學童最常使用的是後設認知策略,而情感策略則最少被使用。
二、男女學童在整體英語學習策略的使用上有顯著不同,女生在整體學習策略的使用上更是顯著高於男生。此外,跟男生比較起來,女生較常使用六類英語學習策略,但其中只有記憶策略、情感策略達到顯著差異。男女生在五十項個別策略的使用中有22%的學習策略達到顯著差異。
三、高低成就學生在整體英語學習策略的使用上有顯著不同,而高成就學生在整體語言策略的使用頻率上顯著高於低成就學生。此外,高低成就學生在五十項個別策略的使用中,有92% 的學習策略達到顯著差異。
四、擁有三到四年英語學習經驗的國小高年級學童在整體學習策略的使用頻率
上顯著高於完全沒有英語學習經驗的國小高年級學童,特別是在記憶策略、認知策略、補償策略以及後設認知策略的使用上。
五、訪談結果顯示高低成就學童皆運用認知策略、補償策略以及記憶策略來完成語言任務,然而,低成就學童無法有效的運用英語學習策略。
本研究結果建議教師除了要了解高年級學童英語學習策略的使用情形,也要多鼓勵、指導學生使用學習策略,最後並依據研究發現提供教師在英語教學及未來研究上的建議。


This study aims to investigate primary upper graders’ language learning strategy use as well as their strategy use in relation to gender, proficiency level, and years of English learning experiences. To achieve these purposes, the researcher administered a questionnaire adopted from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to 198 students in a public primary school in Kaohsiung. Students’ responses to the questionnaire were calculated and analyzed quantitatively by means of descriptive analyses, independent t-test, and One-way ANOVA. Moreover, a task-based interview was used to gather more information. Eight high proficiency level students and eight low proficiency level students were selected randomly to participate in the interview, and the subject responses were discussed qualitatively.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data analyses, the major findings are listed as follows:
1. Primary upper graders’ medium frequency of overall strategy usage indicates that they sometimes use language learning strategies. As for the six strategy categories, upper graders apply metacognitive strategies most frequently, while they use affective strategies least frequently.
2. Male and female students are significantly different in their use of overall strategies. Female students report a higher frequency of overall strategy use than male students. The six strategy categories are also in favor of female students, but only memory categories and affective categories reach significant differences. In addition, 22% of the individual SILL items reaching significant differences are in favor of female students.
3. High and low proficiency students are significantly different in their use of overall and six strategy categories. High proficiency students use learning strategies more frequently than low proficiency students. Besides, 92% of the individual SILL items reaching significant differences are in favor of high proficiency students.
4. Primary upper graders who have three to four years of English learning experiences outperform those with no English learning experiences in overall strategy use and in four strategy categories, namely memory categories , cognitive categories, compensation categories, and metacognitive categories.
5. The interview results show that both high and low proficiency students apply cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, and memory strategies to perform a task actively. However, low proficiency students fail to effectively use language learning strategies.
The findings suggest that teachers should not only get to know students’ language learning strategy use, but also encourage and guide them to utilize language learning strategies. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research are provided.
.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
CHINESE ABSTRACT i
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Motivation 1
Purposes of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 5
Limitations of the Study 5
Definition of Terms 6
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7
The Development of Language Learning Strategies 7
Language Learning Strategies 9
Definitons of Language Learning Strategies 9
Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies 11
Rubin's Taxonomy 11
O'Malley and Chamot's Taxonomy 13
Oxford’s Taxonomy 15
Variables on Strategy Choices 18
Studies on Gender and Strategy Use 18
Studies on Language Proficiency and Strategy Use 20
Studies on Years of Learning and Strategy Use 23
Young Children’s’ Strategy Use in Taiwan 24
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 27
Subjects 27
Instruments 28
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning Questionnaire 28
The English Monthly Test 29
Study Procedures 29
Data Analysis 32
Quantitative Analysis 32
Qualitative Analysis 32
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33
Upper Graders' Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 33
Gender Differences on Upper Graders’ Strategy Use 35
Comparison of Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 35
Comparison of Individual Memory Strategy Use 37
Comparison of Individual Cognitive Strategy Use 39
Comparison of Individual Compensation Strategy Use 43
Comparison of Individual Metacognitve Strategy Use 44
Comparison of Individual Affective Strategy Use 47
Comparison of Individual Social Strategy Use 48
Proficiency Differences on Upper Graders' Strategy Use 51
Comparison of Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 51
Variation in Individual Memory Strategy Use 52
Variation in Individual Cognitive Strategy Use 54
Variation in Individual Compensation Strategy Use 56
Variation in Individual Metacognitive Strategy Use 58
Variation in Individual Affective Strategy Use 60
Variation in Individual Social Strategy Use 61
Differences of Years of English Learning on Upper Graders’ Strategy Use 63
Task-Based Interview Results from the Aspect of Proficiency Level 66
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 71
Research Findings 71
Implications 73
Suggestions 74
REFERENCES 76
APPENDIXES 81
Appendix A-1: Questionnaire on Language Learning Strategy Use
(English Version) 81
Appendix A-2: Questionnaire on Language Learning Strategy Use
(Chinese Version) 86
Appendix B : Task-Based Interview 92
Appendix C-1: Midterm Exam for Fifth Graders 93
Appendix C-2: Final Exam for Fifth Graders 96
Appendix C-3: Oral Test for Fifth Graders 99
Appendix C-4: Midterm Exam for Six Graders 101
Appendix C-5: Final Exam for Six Graders 104
Appendix C-6: Oral Test for Six Graders 107
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Rubin’s (1981) Taxonomies of Language Learnig Strategies 12
Table 2-2 O’Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies and Their Definitons 14
Table 2-3 Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy System 16
Table 4-1 Upper Graders’ Frequency of Strategy Use (Overall and on Each of the Six Categories) 34
Table 4-2 Male and Female Students’ Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 35
Table 4-3 The Use of Memory Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 37
Table 4-4 The Use of Cognitive Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 40
Table 4-5 The Use of Compensation Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 43
Table 4-6 The Use of Metacognitive Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 45
Table 4-7 The Use of Affective Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 47
Table 4-8 The Use of Social Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 49
Table 4-9 High and Low Proficiency Students’ Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 51
Table 4-10 The Comparison of Memeory Strategies Used by High and Low
Proficiency Students 53
Table 4-11 The Comparison of Cognitive Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 55
Table 4-12 The Comparison of Compensation Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 57
Table 4-13 The Comparison of Metacognitive Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 58

Table 4-14 The Comparison of Affective Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 60
Table 4-15 The Comparison of Social Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 62
Table 4-16 Years of English Learning on Upper Graders’ Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 63
Table 4-17 The Background Data of Sixteen Interviewees 67



























LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 A Flow Chart of the Study Procedures 31



































LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Rubin’s (1981) Taxonomies of Language Learnig Strategies 12
Table 2-2 O’Malley and Chamot’s Taxonomies of Language Learning Strategies and Their Definitons 14
Table 2-3 Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy System 16
Table 4-1 Upper Graders’ Frequency of Strategy Use (Overall and on Each of the Six Categories) 34
Table 4-2 Male and Female Students’ Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 35
Table 4-3 The Use of Memory Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 37
Table 4-4 The Use of Cognitive Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 40
Table 4-5 The Use of Compensation Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 43
Table 4-6 The Use of Metacognitive Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 45
Table 4-7 The Use of Affective Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 47
Table 4-8 The Use of Social Strategies by the Two Gender Groups 49
Table 4-9 High and Low Proficiency Students’ Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 51
Table 4-10 The Comparison of Memeory Strategies Used by High and Low
Proficiency Students 53
Table 4-11 The Comparison of Cognitive Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 55
Table 4-12 The Comparison of Compensation Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 57
Table 4-13 The Comparison of Metacognitive Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 58

Table 4-14 The Comparison of Affective Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 60
Table 4-15 The Comparison of Social Strategies Used by High and Low Proficiency Students 62
Table 4-16 Years of English Learning on Upper Graders’ Overall and Six Categories of Strategy Use 63
Table 4-17 The Background Data of Sixteen Interviewees 67



























LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 A Flow Chart of the Study Procedures 31


Chamot, A. U. (1987). Inferencing: Testing the ‘hypothesis-testing’ hypothesis. In Wenden and Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-83). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Chamot, A. U. (1993). Student responses to learning strategy instruction in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 308-321.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Chamot, A. U., &; Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-22.

Chamot, A. U., &; O'malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 227-249.

Chang, C. Y., Liu, S. C., &; Lee, Y. N. (2007). A study of language learning strategies used by college EFL learners in Taiwan. Language Learning, 3, 235-262.

Chang, Y. J. (1996). A study of English learning motivation and strategies in relation to the English learning achievement of junior high school students in Taiwan (Unpublished master's thesis). National Kaoshiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Chou, S. H. (2008). The study of English learning strategies in relation to the English learning self-efficacy of primary school high grade students (Unpublished master's thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Cohen, A. D. (1999). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman.

Ehrman, M.E. and Oxford, R.L. (1988). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 253-265.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, J. M., &; Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-383.

Hsieh, P. C. (2006). Junior high school students' English learning strategy use and its relationship with their English learning achievements (Unpublished master's thesis). Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Hsu, M. Y. (2006). EFL leaning in the language learning strategy use by primary school students in central Taiwan (Unpublished master's thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.

Hsu, S. C. (2007). English learning strategy use by primary school students. Journal of Nanya Institute of Technology, (27), 129-142.

Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 75-88). Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.

Khaldieh, S. A. (2000). Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. less-proficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 522-533. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb01996.x

Khalil, A. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 108-117.

Krieger, D. (2005). Teaching ESL versus EFL: Principles and practices. English Teaching Forum, 43(2), 8-14.
Lai, Y. C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 255-280. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00167.x

Lan, R., &; Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of primary school students in Taiwan. IRAL, 41(4), 339-379.

Lu, Q. D. (1996). Insights into sexes and language proficiency in language learning strategy for Chinese students of English majors (Unpublished master's thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 185-195.

Magogwe, J. M., &; Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35(3), 338-352.

Ministry of Education. (2000). Guidelines of the integrated grade 1-9 curriculum. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., &; Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto, Canada: Modern Language Center, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.

O'malley, J. M., &; Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O'malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., &; Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35(1), 21-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01013.x

Ok, L. K. (2003). The relationship of school year, sex and proficiency on the use of learning strategies in learning English of Korean junior high school students. Asian EFL Journal, 5(3), 1-36.

Osanai, D. (2000). Differences in language learning strategies between male and female, and also between Asian and Latino ESL students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.

Oxford, R. L. (1986). Second language learning strategies: Current research and implications for practice. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED278273)

Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. L., &; Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.

Oxford, R. L., &; Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 404-419.

Oxford, R. L., &; Ehrman, M. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.

Oxford, R. L., &; Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300.

Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., &; Ehrman, M. (1988). Vive la différence? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 21(4), 321-329. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1988.tb01076.x

Rahimi, M., Riazi, A., &; Saif, S. (2008). An investigation into the factors affecting the use of language learning strategies by Persian EFL learners. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 31-60.

Richard, J. C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rigney, J. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H. F. O'neil, Jr. (Ed.), Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Rose, K. R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167-180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the" good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.

Rubin, J. (1981). The study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-131.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Su, M. H. (2003). An investigation of Taiwanese grade 5-6 students' EFL language learning strategies and language learning experience. The Journal of Educational Science, 3(1), 138-177.

Sy, B. M. (1995). Sex differences and language learning strategies. Papers from the 11th Conference of English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 19-51. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., LTD.

Tseng, S. W. (2005). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and English learning strategy of primary school students (Unpublished master's thesis). National Taichung Teachers College, Taichung, Taiwan.

Vann, R. J., &; Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.

Weinstein, C. E., &; Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. Handbook of research on teaching, 3, 315-327.

Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573-597.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00117

Yang, N. D. (1994). A study of factors affecting college EFL students’ use of learning strategies. Proceedings of eleventh conference English teaching and learning in the Republic of China, 53-82, Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., LTD.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊