跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.27.215) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/15 04:48
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:黃薇真
研究生(外文):HUANG, WEI-CHEN
論文名稱:模糊容忍度和以英語作為外語之成人學習者的自我英語能力評分
論文名稱(外文):Ambiguity Tolerance and Self-Rated English Proficiency of Adult Learners of English as a Foreign Language
指導教授:卡蒂歐
指導教授(外文):Liu, Eva Salazar
口試委員:李家遠陳亦蘭
口試委員(外文):Lee, Jia YeuanChen, Yih-Lan
口試日期:2018-11-15
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:銘傳大學
系所名稱:應用英語學系碩士在職專班
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:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:英文
論文頁數:87
中文關鍵詞:模糊容忍模糊容忍度英語能力自我評分聽力能力自我評分成人英語學習者英語學習
外文關鍵詞:ATAmbiguity ToleranceTolerance of AmbiguitySelf-Rated English ProficiencySelf-Rated English Listening ProficiencyAdult EFL (English as a Foreign Language) LearnerEFL Learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:422
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:37
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
學習外語的過程中,感到複雜和困惑時,外語(以英語作為外語學習)學習者常備感艱辛和不安。一九九九年埃爾曼於研究中指出,成人學習者對於學習外語的語言結構和文化內容感到複雜和模糊時,會感到不安和無法勝任。本研究旨在探討成人外語學習者對於模糊之容忍程度(AT)以及學習者對模糊之容忍度與其對總體英語能力和聽力英語能力之自我評分之間的關係。本調查採用一九九五年伊利第二語言模糊容忍度量表(α = .92),統計分析工具使用描述性統計、皮爾森相關分析和變異數分析(ANOVA)。調查結果顯示,台灣北部的成人外語學習者一般具有中等的模糊容忍度水平(N = 218,X = 3.63,s = .75),其模糊容忍度與總體英語能力自我評分(r = - .455,p < .001)之間,和其模糊容忍度與聽力英語能力自我評分(r = - .380,p < .001)之間,皆存在顯著負相關之關係。變異數分析結果顯示,在總體英語能力自我評分和聽力英語能力自我評分上,分層的三個模糊容忍度群組(高忍受組,中忍受組和低忍受組)之間皆存在顯著差異(p = .000),且高忍受組顯著性差異高於另二組。本研究結果與先前文獻結果一致,即若外語學習者能接受外語學習過程中的模糊性,便可達到更高的語言能力水平。然而,本研究結果亦顯示,在此樣本中,具有中度模糊忍受度之學習者自我外語能力評分並未高於具有高度模糊忍受度之學習者自我外語能力評分,此結果未支持部分文獻主張的中等模糊容忍度對於第二外語學習者為最理想。據此,本研究結果有助於外語教學者了解 「模糊容忍度」是促進外語學習者之學習成效的重要角色。
Learning a foreign language can make EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners feel traumatic and uncertain when exposed to complexity or confusion. According to Ehrman (1999), for adult learners, the process of cognitive complexity and ambiguity from linguistic and cultural inputs might make them feel uncertain and incompetent in mastering a foreign language. This study aimed to explore the level of ambiguity tolerance of the adult EFL learners and relationships between AT and self-rated general and listening English proficiency. Ely’s (1995) “Second Language Tolerance Ambiguity Scale” (α= .92) was adapted. Descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlation analysis and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were utilised. The findings revealed that the adult EFL learners in northern Taiwan, in general, had a moderate level of AT (N = 218, X = 3.63, s = .75). Correlation results indicated a negative significant relationship between ambiguity tolerance and self-rated general proficiency (r = -.455, p < .001), and a negative significant relationship between ambiguity tolerance and self-rated listening proficiency (r = - .380, p < .001). ANOVA results showed that there were significant differences (p = .000) among the three stratified AT groups (Group H; High Tolerance, Group M; Moderate Tolerance, and Group L; Low Tolerance) in both self-rated general proficiency and self-rated listening proficiency. Also, High Tolerance group outscored the other groups in self-rated language proficiency. The findings are in line with previous literature that, with a certain level of ambiguity tolerance in L2 learning, EFL learners will achieve a higher language proficiency level. However, the findings that learners with moderate tolerance of ambiguity did not perceive their language proficiency better than those with high tolerance did not support some of the literature that moderate level of AT is optimal for L2 learners. It is, then, helpful for EFL instructors to know that ambiguity tolerance serves as an important role fostering EFL learners’ learning.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................... i
ABSTRACT IN CHINESE ................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ........................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................vii


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study ........................................ 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study .........................................4
1.3 Research Questions ............................................. 4
1.4 Definitions of Terms ........................................... 5
Ambiguity Tolerance .................................................5
Self-Rated English General Proficiency ............................. 5
Self-Rated English Listening Proficiency ........................... 6
Adult EFL Learners ..................................................6
1.5 Significance of the Study ...................................... 6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................... 8
Part A: Conceptual Background ...................................... 8
2.1 Definition of Ambiguity Tolerance .............................. 8
2.2 Construct Development in Psychology .......................................................................... 9
2.3 Budner’s Theory ................................................................ 10
A. Stimuli, Ambiguous Situations, Responses and Reactions .......................... 11
B. Critics about Budner’s Theory ................................................... 12
2.4 Factors That Affect Ambiguity .................................................. 13
A. Intolerance/tolerance of Ambiguity (IA/TA) vs. Intolerance/tolerance of Uncertainty (IU/TU)..14
B. Ambiguity Tolerance (AT) and Creativity ......................................... 15

Part B: The Application of Ambiguity Tolerance in Foreign Language Learning ......... 17
2.5 Ambiguity in Foreign Language Learning .......................................... 17
2.6 Intolerance/Tolerance of Ambiguity and L2 Situations ............................ 18
2.7 Variables That Affect Ambiguity Tolerance in L2 Learning ........................ 23
A. Foreign Language Anxiety ......................................................... 24
B. Ego Boundaries ................................................................... 25
C. Learning Strategy
2.8 AT and Its Relationship to Foreign Language Proficiency ......................... 27
2.8.1 AT and Its Relationship to General Proficiency ................................ 28
2.8.2 AT and Its Relationship to Listening Proficiency .............................. 28
2.9 Self-Rated General Proficiency and Self-Rated Listening Proficiency ............. 30
2.10 Early Studies on AT and Language Proficiency and Listening Proficiency ......... 34
A. AT and L2 General Proficiency .................................................... 34
B. AT and L2 Listening Proficiency .................................................. 44

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 47
3.1 Participants .................................................................... 47
3.2 Data Collection and Procedure ................................................... 48
3.3 Measurement ..................................................................... 49
3.3.1 Scales ........................................................................ 49
3.3.2 Reliability of the Instrument ................................................. 50
3.3.2.1 Pilot Study ................................................................. 50
3.3.2.2 Formal Study ................................................................ 50
3.4 Methods of Data Statistical Analysis ............................................ 51
A. Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................51
B. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Analysis .................................................... 51
C. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ................................................................... 52

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................... 53
4.1 Data Analysis ................................................................................. 53
4.2 Inferential Findings........................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS .................. 60
5.1 Summary of Major Findings...................................................................... 60
5.2 Conclusions and Implications ...................................................................65
5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research .......................................... 66

REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 68
APPENDIX ........................................... 77
Appendix A:Revised SLTAS in Bilingual Version ..................................................... 77


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Distribution of the Participants’ Age and Educational Highest Degree ........................ 48
Table 3.2 Reliability Statistics of the SLTAS ..........................................................50
Table 4.1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Ambiguity Tolerance Scores from the SLTAS .....................54
Table 4.2 Distribution of the Participants’ Self-Rated English General Proficiency and Self-Rated English Listening Proficiency ................................................... 55
Table 4.3 Descriptive Results Regarding Mean and Standard Deviation of Self-Rated English General Proficiency and Self-Rated English Listening Proficiency Scores ..................... 55
Table 4.4 Table Showing the Relationship of AT and Self-Rated General English Proficiency and AT and Self-Rated Listening English Proficiency ......................................................................... 56
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Three Stratified AT Groups .......... 57
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistical Results of Self-Rated English General Proficiency According to Their Ambiguity Tolerance Levels......................................................... 57
Table 4.7 ANOVA Results Regarding Self-Rated English General Proficiency and Ambiguity Tolerance .................................................... 58
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistical Results Regarding Self-Rated English Listening Proficiency According to Their Ambiguity Tolerance Levels .............................................. 59
Table 4.9 Self-Rated English Listening Proficiency and Ambiguity Tolerance ..............................59

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 The Conceptual Framework of the Measurement .................. 49

REFERENCES
Abdollahian, G., & Fatemi, A. H. (1999). A correlational study of EFL learners’
ambiguity tolerance and acculturation in receptive skills. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 613-628.

Akmajian, A., Farmer, A. K., Bickmore, L., Demers, R. A., & Harnish, R. M. (2017).
Linguistics: an introduction to language and communication. MIT press.

Alavi, S. M., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2009). Examining the role of individual differences
in lexical inferencing. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(15), 2829-2834.

Anderson, A. & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. New York: Oxford University Press.

Atamanova, I., & Bogomaz, S. (2014). Ambiguity tolerance as a psychological factor
of foreign language communicative competence development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 345-352.

Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. D. (2009). Openness and ambiguity
intolerance: Their differential relations to well-being in the context of an academic life transition. Personality & Individual Differences, 47(3), 219-223.

Basoz, T. (2015). Exploring the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity of EFL
learners and their vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 53-66.
Bledsoe, J. R. (2011). Tolerance of ambiguity and inductive vs. deductive preference
across languages and proficiency levels at BYU: A correlational study. All Theses and Dissertations, 2657, 1-65.

Brown, H. D. (1978). The good language teacher: coping with the effect of affect.
CATESOL Occasional Papers, 4, 34-39.
Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles, an interactive approach to language pedagogy (pp. 475-479), Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal Of Personality, 30(1), 29-59.

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(2), 222-236.

Cassidy, S. (2006). Learning style and student self-assessment skill. Education Training, 48(2/3), 170-177.

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report
student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational
Psychology, 20(3), 307-322.

Chapelle, C. A., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as
predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27-45.

Cheng, Y. S. (2005). EFL learners’ listening comprehension anxiety. English
Teaching and Learning, 29(3), 25-44.

Chiang, H. H. (2016). A Study of Interactions among Ambiguity Tolerance,
Classroom Work Styles, and English Proficiency. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 61.

Chu, W. H., Lin, D. Y., Chen, T. Y., Tsai, P. S., & Wang, C. H. (2015). The
relationships between ambiguity tolerance, learning strategies, and learning Chinese as a second language. System, 49, 1-16.

Cross K. P. (1990). Classroom research: Helping professors learn more about teaching
and learning. How administrators can improve teaching: Moving from Talk to Action in Higher Education (pp. 122-142). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and
cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control theory.
European Psychologist, 14(2), 168-176.

DeRoma, V. M., Martin, K. M., & Kessler, M. L. (2003). The relationship between
tolerance for ambiguity and need for course structure. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 30(2), 104.

Dewaele, J. M., & Ip, T. S. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom
anxiety, second language tolerance of ambiguity and self-rated English proficiency among Chinese learners. SSLLT, 3 (1), 47-66.
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. U.S.A.:
Sage.
Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language 
 learning. Affect in language learning (pp. 68-86). U.S.A.: Cambridge University
Press.
Ehrman M. E., Leaver B. L., Oxford R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individualdifferences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313-330.

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311-327.

Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language
learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.

Ekbatani, G., & Pierson, H. (2000). Moving toward learner-directed assessment.
Learner-Directed Assessment in ESL, 1-11.

El-Koumy, A. S. (2000). Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-,
middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. Education Resources
Information Center (ERIC), USA, 2003. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2365143

Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies.
Foreign Language Annals, 22(5), 437-445.

Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. Reid, J. M. (Ed.) 
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87-95). Boston, U.S.A.: 
 Heinle & Heinle.

Erten, I. H., & Zehır Topkaya, E. (2009). Understanding tolerance of ambiguity of
EFL learners in reading classes at tertiary level. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(1), 29-44.

Farrell, T. S., & Jacobs, G. (2010). Essentials for successful English language
teaching. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual 
 personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108-143.

Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: a review of the recent
literature. Psychology, 4(09), 717-728.

Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: a review of the
concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179-199.

Grenier, S., Barrette, A.-M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and 
 intolerance of ambiguity: similarities and differences. Personality and 
 Individual Differences, 39, 593-600.


Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. ELT Journal Volume
57(4), 401-405.

Hirao, K., Kobayashi, R., & Yabuwaki, K. (2012). Association of cognitive judgment
and shyness with frequency and quality of flow expe
rience. Psychology
Research and Behavior Management, 5, 159-162.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Hou, Y. A. (2016). The impacts of multiple intelligences on tolerance of ambiguity
and English proficiency—a case study of Taiwanese EFL college students. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(04), 255-275.

Jiayuan, Q. (2016). Correlation studies on tolerance of ambiguity and English
listening comprehension. In Proceedings of The Fifth Northeast Asia International Symposium on Language, Literature and Translation, 708-800.

Kazamia, V. (1999). How tolerant are Greek EFL learners of foreign language
ambiguities. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 69-78.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Affective variables and Japanese L2 reading ability.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 55.

Kornilova, T. V., & Kornilov, S. A. (2010). Intelligence and tolerance/intolerance for
uncertainty as predictors of creativity. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 3,
240-256.

Ladouceur, R., Gosselin, P., & Dugas, M. J. (2000). Experimental manipulation of
intolerance of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(9), 933-941.
LeBlanc, R., & Painchaud, G. (1985). Self‐assessment as a second language
placement instrument. Tesol Quarterly, 19(4), 673-687.

Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition
research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Liu, C. (2015). Relevant researches on tolerance of ambiguity. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 5(9), 1874-1882.

Liu, M., & Ni, H. (2015). Chinese university EFL learners’ foreign language writing
anxiety: Pattern, effect and causes. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 46-58.

Lynch T., & Mendelsohn D. (2013). Listening. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.) An introduction to
applied linguistics (pp. 179-196). Routledge.

Mac Donald Jr, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and 
 validity. Psychological Reports, 26(3), 791-798.

MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self‐ratings of second
language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), 265-287.
McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183-189.

McLain, D. L. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure:The multiple stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale-II (MSTAT—II) 1. Psychological Reports, 105(3), 975-988.

Merrotsy, P. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: a trait of the creative personality.
Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 232-237.

Nishino, T. (2007). Beginning to read extensively: A case study with Mako and Fumi.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(2), 76.

Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality 
 Assessment, 39(6), 607-619.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. U.S.A: Heinle & Heinle.

Owen, W., & Sweeney, R. (2002). Ambiguity tolerance, performance, learning, and satisfaction: A research direction. School of Computer and Information Sciences. doi:10.1.1.594.231

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know,
(pp. 142-143). U.S.A.: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. Affect in
language learning (pp. 58-67). U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. (1992). Second language research on individual
differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205.

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

Paulston, C. B. (1980). English as a second language. What research says to the
teacher. Washington: National Education Association.

Peacock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to
proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 247-263.

Richards, J. C., Platt J., & Platt H. (2000). Longman dictionary of language teaching
and applied linguistics. HK: Pearson Education.

Sa’dabadi, N., & Sarkhosh, M. (2014). The relationship among level of ambiguity
tolerance and cloze test performance of Iranian EFL learners across gender. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(4), 340.

Salvisberg, J. (2005). Cognitive style and learning strategies. IATEFL Issues, 183, 2-
3.
Saville-Troike, M. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition. New York, USA:Cambridge University Press.

Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The 
individual in the communicative classroom (pp. 58-59). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Sewell, H. D. (2003). The good language learner.Retrieved from
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-
artslaw/cels/essays/secondlanguage/SewellSLA.pdf

Streufert, S. and Nogami, G. Y. (1989). Cognitive style and complexity: Implications
for I/O psychology. In C.L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 94-143). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1996). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (1984). The role of literature in a communicative approach. In M.
Dejuan Espinet, J. M. Garcia-Teprano, R. Pujol and R. Ribe. Acquiring a Foreign Language in the Classroom (pp. 27-40). Barcelona: Universitad Autonoma de Barcelona.

Ur, P. (2003). A course in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, D. (1988). A critic's defense of the criticized. Political Psychology, 9(2), 317-
320.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 48(3), 1,
280–281.

William, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge.

Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of
ambiguity: An empirical study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61-73.

Zhou, Y. (2000). The influence of ambiguity tolerance on listening comprehension.
Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 23(4), 75-78.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top