臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究應用易經六爻互動定律探討英文文法翻譯教學法，並驗證互動定律的有效性，希望了解學習者和文法翻譯教學法間的關係，以提供文法翻譯教學法教師另類的觀點。從易經來看，6爻為一個卦，以其互動架構，探討學生氣質屬性的三個變項(外向與內向，感覺與直覺，思考與感情)和文法翻譯教學法的三個變項(教師、方法、評估)之間的關係。
本研究的受測對象為30位義守大學應用英語學系三年級學生，其中包含6位男性及24位女性。本研究兼採質及量的研究方法，包含了兩份問卷(問卷採用邁爾斯-布里格斯性格分類量表以及一個自編量表，並使用個別訪談。本研究的主要問題: 學生三個變項以及GTM的三個變項是否符合中國易經中的互動定律的預測?
根據本研究果顯示，卦象為天、地、雷、風、水、山、澤的學生符合互動定律的預測，但，卦象為火的學生未符合互動定律的預測。未來研究建議更多受測對象與更多不同的教學方法加入以檢驗更準確的成果。

This paper attempts to provide a different look on the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) from the perspective of Chinese I-Ching, hoping to examine predictions from interactive law of hexagram and to provide EFL teachers alternative perspectives. The purpose of the study is mainly to examine the validity of Chinese I-Ching in its interactive law of hexagram, hoping to understand the relationships between learners and the EFL instructional method (Grammar translation method, GTM). From I Ching , the 6 Yaos constitute a hexagram, which can be reflected through the yin and yang, with a total of 64 combinations (hexagram). The thesis intends to explore the relationships between learners’ variables (thinking-feeling, sensing-intuition, and extrovert-introvert) and the variables (teacher, methodology, and assessment) underlying Grammar Translation Method (GTM) through analysis of interactive law.
In this study, participants were 30 junior Applied English -Shou University students, six males and 24 females. This study adopted a qualitative and quantitative methods, with two questionnaires (one adopted from Keirsey Temperament Sorter and the other self-made scale on interaction of instructional settings and learners’ temperament types). Individual interviews were employed to further examine participants’ responses. The research question of the present study is: Does the interaction between learner’s and instructional variables follow the interactive law from I-Ching? The results indicate that students of Heaven, Earth, Thunder, Wind, Water, Mountains and Lake trigrams follow the predictions of the interactive law while students of Fire trigram did not. It is suggested that interested researchers in the future may recruit more participants and different teaching methods further examine the validity of the interactive law through other EFL approaches.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1-1 Background 1
1-2 Purpose of the Study 2
1-3 Significant of the Study 3
1-4 Research Question 3
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
Overview 7
2-1 Components in the Instructional Setting 7
The Ingredients in Objective-Assessment 7
The Ingredients in Teacher-Student 10
The Ingredients in Material-Method 12
2-2 GTM 14
2-3 I-Ching 17
The Double Guas 19
2-4 Learners’ Variables and GTM Settings 21
2-5 The Interactive Law 25
Chapter 3 Methodology 34
Participants 34
Sampling Strategies 34
Instruments 35
Data Collection Procedure 36
Data Analysis 37
Chapter 4 Results 39
Chapter 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 57
Overview 57
Discussions 57
References 62
Appendices 65
Appendix A : Implication/ meaning of the 64 double Guas 65
Appendix B : Eight Guas Inventory(Adapted from Jung, David Deirsey) 67
Appendix C : Learner’s Variables and Instructional Variables Interaction Inventory 72
Appendix D : Consent Form 76
Appendix E : Interview Question 77
Appendix F : Transcriptions 78
Tables
Table 1 The Features of the Instructional Conditions in Terms of Six Yaos 14
Table 2 Counter-event vs. Event 17
Table 3 The Features of the Instructional Conditions in Terms of Six Yaos 19
Table 4 Learner Variables’ Ying and Yan 22
Table 5 Eight Combinations of Learners’ Variable in Terms of Three Yaos 23
Table 6 Interpretation of Eight Type of Learners 23
Table 7 The Features of the Instructional Conditions in Terms of Six Yaos 24
Table 8 The Interactive between Upper Gua and Lower Gua in Interactive Law 26
Table 9 The Features of the GTM Variables and Heaven Type (☷ ☰) 26
Table 10 The Features of the GTM Variables and Earth Type (☷ ☷) 27
Table 11 The Features of the GTM Variables and Wind Type (☷ ☴) 28
Table 12 The Features of the GTM Variables and Lake Type (☷ ☱) 29
Table 13 The Features of the GTM Variables and Water Type (☷ ☵) 30
Table 14 The Features of the GTM Variables and Fire Type (☷ ☲) 31
Table 15 The Features of the GTM Variables and Thunder Type (☷ ☳) 32
Table 16 The Features of the GTM Variables and Mountain Type (☷ ☶) 32
Table 17 The First Part (Question 1 to 3) of the Participants of Heaven Gua 40
Table 18 The Second Part (Question 4 to 6) of the Participants of Earth Gua 40
Table 19 The Third Part (Question 7 to 9) of the Participants of Wind Gua 43
Table 20 The Forth Part (Question 10 to 12) of the Participants of Lake Gua 44
Table 21 The Fifth Part (Question 13 to 15) of the Participants of Water Gua 46
Table 22 The Sixth Part (Question 16 to 18) of the Participants of Fire Gua 47
Table 23 The Seventh Part (Question 19 to 21) of the Participants of Thunder Gua 48
Table 24 The Eighth Part (Question 22 to 24) of the Participants of Mountain Gua 50
Table 25 Participants’ Perceptions 56
Figure 1. Summary of GTM 16

Anderson, L. W., &; Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom''s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., &; Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative Learning Techniques. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-70
Felder, R.M., &; Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education [Electronic Version].Engr. Education, 78(7), 674-681. Retrieved on July 24, 2009.
Fernandez, J., &; Mateo, M. A. (1992). Student evaluation of university teaching quality: Analysis of a questionnaire for a sample of university students in Spain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 (3), 675-686
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., &; Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design(4th edition). Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich College Publishers.
Garrett, T. (2008). Student– and teacher– centered classroom management: A case study of three elementary teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction,43(1), 34-47.
Giang, zutong (2005). Yixue Xinlixue (Psychology of I-Ching). Shanghai: Sanlianc. Publication
Granello, D. H. (2000). Encouraging the cognitive development of supervisees: Using Bloom‟s taxonomy in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40,292-307.
Hassard, J. (2005). Meaningful learning model. In the art of teaching science. Retrieved November 13, 2005 from: http://scied.gsu.edu/Hassard/mos/2.10.html.
Hirsh, S., &; Kummerow, J. (1997). Life types: Understanding yourself and make the most of who you arey. New York: Warner Books.
Huang, Alfred (2000). The Numerology of the I-Ching: A Sourcebook of Symbols, Structures, and Traditional.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
McGhee, R., &; Kozma, R. (2003). New teacher and student roles in the technology-supported classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Shariffudin, Rio Sumarni and Lee, Ming Foong and Hasan, Hasuzila (2006) Personality pattern among high achievers based on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). In: 6th Annual SEAAIR Conference, 5 - 7th Sept. 2006, Awana Porto Malai Resort, Langkawi, Malaysia.
UW Teaching Academy Short-Course. (2003). Exam question types &; student competencies: How to measure learning accurately: Bloom''s Taxonomy.