大學生於英語簡報中與觀眾互動之言談策略｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	楊敏 Yang, Min
論文名稱：	大學生於英語簡報中與觀眾互動之言談策略 EFL Learners’ Use of Discourse Strategies for and Investment in Engaging Audience in English Oral Presentations
指導教授：	張銪容 Chang, Yu-Jung 黃虹慈 Huang, Hung-Tzu
口試委員:	林淑敏 Lin, Shumin 張月菁 Chang, Yueh-ching
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	105
中文關鍵詞：	與觀眾互動、言談策略、英語口頭簡報
外文關鍵詞：	Audience engagement, Discourse strategies, English oral presentations
相關次數：	點閱：1 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

在課堂中進行英語口頭簡報時，成功地與觀眾互動並吸引其注意力能夠幫助講者有效地傳遞訊息，學習如何在英語口頭簡報中與觀眾互動及吸引其注意力可能能夠幫助學生在學校及職場中具備更多優勢。然而，目前關於英語口頭簡報之研究大多集中於有經驗之講者，較少研究著重於大學生之課堂英語簡報。本研究旨在探討台灣以英語為外國語之大學生，在課堂以英語進行口頭簡報時如何使用言談策略與觀眾互動並吸引其注意力，並探討大學生於英語簡報時投資心力與觀眾互動之原因。本研究之分析架構採用Hyland (2001, 2005a) 提出之「參與模型」(model of engagement)，以及Norton (2000;Norton Peirce, 1995) 提出之投資理論(investment)。
共三十四位大學生參與本研究，研究進行時，所有受試者正在修習英語口語訓練課，三十三位受試者為外語系學生，一位受試者為科技管理學院生。本研究語料來源為受試者於英語口語訓練課中上台進行之英語口頭簡報，受試者之英語口頭報告全程錄影並且做成逐字稿，以Hyland (2001, 2005a) 之「參與模型」(model of engagement) 分析受試者進行英語口語報告時與觀眾互動時使用之言談策略。此外，研究員也於英語口語訓練課中進行四次課室觀察，並且與二十位自願受試者一對一進行三次半結構訪談。課室觀察及訪談有助了解受試者進行英語口頭簡報時之言談策略使用、投資心力與觀眾互動之原因，及決定受試者是否與觀眾互動之影響因素。
研究發現受試者之言談策略多採用命令(directives) 及問句 (questions)，其言談策略使用受到許多因素影響，例如為了傳遞訊息、幫助觀眾消化吸收資訊、達到課程要求，及提升觀眾好奇心及注意力。訪談結果顯示大多數受試者為了得到立即或長遠效益，例如更好的課堂成績、被觀眾喜歡，及在職場中具備更多優勢，於英語口頭報告中投資心力與觀眾互動。研究結果可幫助教師提升學生對於不同觀眾互動之言談策略之了解，並且幫助學生更有效地投資心力達成學習目標。

When giving English oral presentations in ESP or EAP courses, it is important for learners to manage this interactional aspect when presenting, because appropriately engaging audience may make the presentation more effective and is a skill valued in academic fields and at the workplace. As limited studies have examined EFL learners’ engagement or non-engagement of audience in English oral presentations, this study explores Taiwanese EFL undergraduates’ audience engagement in English oral presentations, including their use of discourse strategies and reasons behind their investment in engaging audience. Analytical frameworks utilized are audience engagement strategies primarily adopted from Hyland’s(2001, 2005a) model of engagement and Norton’s (2000; Norton Peirce, 1995) theory of investment.
A total of 34 Taiwanese EFL learners were recruited from two English Oral Training courses at a university in Northern Taiwan during the 2013 Spring semester. All informants
were English majors, except one who was Technology Management major. Data sources includes: (1) 55 video-recorded English oral presentations given by the participating EFL learners, (2) classroom observations, and (3) one-on-one semi-structured interviews and reviewing of recorded oral presentations with volunteer informants.
It is found that most informants were able to engage audience with directives and questions, and their choice of strategies was influenced by various factors. It is also found that some informants decided to invest in engaging audience because this would bring them immediate or potential future returns that granted them more material or symbolic resources.
With the findings, it is suggested that instructors raise the learners’ awareness toward the linguistic resources for engaging audience and help the learners effectively target their investment toward their goals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
摘要 ....................................................................................................................................... i 
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii 
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................vi 
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vii 
 
Chapter One    Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 
1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study ..................................................................1 
1.2 Research Purposes ....................................................................................................2 
1.3 Outline of the Chapters .............................................................................................3 
 
Chapter Two    Literature Review........................................................................................ 5 
2.1 Audience Engagement in Discourse ..........................................................................5 
2.1.1 Conceptualizing engagement in discourse .......................................................5 
2.1.2 Studies on engagement of audience in spoken discourse .................................7 
2.2 Learner OPs ..............................................................................................................8 
2.2.1 A description of learner OPs in university classrooms .....................................8 
2.2.2 Studies on engagement in learner OPs ............................................................9 
2.3 Analytical Frameworks ........................................................................................... 10 
2.3.1 Discourse strategies for audience engagement in discourse ........................... 11 
2.3.2 Investment and learner agency in language learning ..................................... 14 
2.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 17 
 
Chapter Three    Methodology ........................................................................................... 19 
3.1 The Informants and the Context .............................................................................. 19 
3.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 20 
3.2.1 Learner OPs ................................................................................................. 21 
3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews and reviewing of video-recorded OPs ................. 21 
3.2.3 Classroom observations ................................................................................ 23 
3.3 Data Coding and Analysis ....................................................................................... 24 

Chapter Four    Discourse Strategies for Audience Engagement in Learner OPs ........... 32 
4.1 The Use of Audience Engagement Strategies in Learner OPs .................................. 32 
4.1.1 Directives ..................................................................................................... 33 
4.1.2 Questions ..................................................................................................... 36 
4.1.3 Appealing to sharedness ............................................................................... 40 
4.1.4 Humor .......................................................................................................... 42 
4.2 Discussion of the Findings ...................................................................................... 43 
 
Chapter Five    Investment in Audience Engagement in Learner OPs ............................. 49 
5.1 Reasons for Making Investment in Engaging the Audience in OPs .......................... 49 
5.2 Factors that Shapes Investment in Engaging Audience in OPs ................................. 53 
5.2.1 The atmosphere of the English Oral Training courses ................................... 53 
5.2.2 The topic of presentation .............................................................................. 57 
5.2.3 Level of familiarity of doing English OPs ..................................................... 59 
5.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 61 
5.3 Discussion of the Findings ...................................................................................... 62 
 
Chapter Six    Conclusion ................................................................................................... 66 
6.1 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 66 
6.2 Teaching Implications ............................................................................................. 67 
6.3 Research Implications ............................................................................................. 69 
6.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .................................................... 70 
 
References ........................................................................................................................... 74 
 
Appendices 
Appendix A Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 80 
Appendix B    Outline of the Textbook “Presentations in English” (Williams, 2008) ..... 84 
Appendix C    Information about Learner OPs .............................................................. 88 
Appendix D    Interview Guides .................................................................................... 91 
Appendix E    Forms of Directives, Questions, and Appealing to Sharedness .............. 104 
Appendix F    Factors that Shaped the Informants’ Investment in Audience Engagement 
in OPs ................................................................................................... 105
                                

References

Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. The Nordic Journal of English Studies,
9, 41-68.
Á gnes, M. (2002). Are you with me? A metadiscursive analysis of interactive strategies in college students’ course presentations. International Journal of English Studies, 2, 55-78.
Attardo, S. (2003). Introduction: the pragmatics of humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1287-1294.
Angélil-Carter, S. (1997). Second language acquisition of spoken and written English: Acquiring the skeptron. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 263-287.
Baker, C. (1997). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D. Silverman (Ed.),Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 130-143). London: Saga Publications.
Besnier, N. (1988). The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers.Language, 64, 707-736.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16,645-668.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Y. (2011). Picking one’s battles: NNES doctoral students’ imagined communities and selections of investment. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10, 213-230.
Charles, C., & Ventola, E. (2002). A Multi-semiotic genre: The Conference slide show. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson. (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing (pp. 169-209). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Cheng, S. W. (2012). “That’s it for today”: Academic lecture closings and the impact of class size. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 234-248.
Chou, M. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 272-285.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman,(Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cowie, N. (2009). Observation. In J. Heigham & R. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics (pp.3-24). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2003). Interacting with the audience: Modality in business lectures delivered in a cross-cultural context. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), English modality in perspective. Genre analysis and contrastive studies. Frankfurt am main: Peter Lang, pp.27-43.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 39-54.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2008) Interaction in academic lectures vs. written text materials: The case of questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1216-1231.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems,suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 297-320.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29,345-373.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.
Frank, J. (1989). On conversational involvement by mail: The use of questions in direct sales letters. Text, 9, 231-259.
Frobert-Adamo, M. (2002). Humor in oral presentations: What’s the joke? In E. Ventola, C. Shalom,& S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing (pp. 211-225). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 291-306.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239-256.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bridging in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Power and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2002b). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22, 529-557.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7, 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16, 363-377.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a global context. London, New York: Continuum.
Joughin, G. (2007). Student conceptions of oral presentations. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 323-336.
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 241-249.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.
Kim, L. S. (2003). Multiple identities in a multicultural world: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 137-158.
Kuo, C. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 121-138.
Lee, D. (2006). Humor in spoken academic discourse. NUCB Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 8, 49-68.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mauranen, A. (2001). Reflexive academic talk: Observations from MICASE. In R. Simpson & J. Swales (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium (165-178). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 161-173.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 577-608.
Miller, L. (2002). Toward a model for lecturing in a second language. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 145-162.
Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325-338.
Morell, T. (2007).What enhance EFL students’ participation in lecture discourse? Student, lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 222-237.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9-31.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159-171). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Politi, P. (2009). One-sided laughter in academic presentations: A small-scale investigation. Discourse Studies, 11, 561-584.
Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 5-23.
Reershemius, G. (2012). Research cultures and the pragmatic functions of humor in academic research presentations: A corpus-assisted analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 863-875.
Rounds, P. L. (1987). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in educational setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 13-29.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 45-70.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analyzing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 171-186.
Thompson, S. (1998). Why ask questions in monologue? Language choice at work in scientific and linguistic talk. In S. Hunston (Ed.), Language at work (pp. 137-150). Clevedon, England: University of Brimingham Press.
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. Bailey, & D. Nunan, (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vassileva, I. (2002). Speaker-audience interaction: The case of Bulgarians presenting in English. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson. (Eds.), The Language of Conferencing (pp. 255-276). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ventola, E., Shalom, C., & Thompson, S. (Eds.). (2002). The language of conferencing. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical journal genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 257-268.
Webber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 157-181.
William, E. J. (2008). Presentations in English. Macmillan.
Zareva, A. (2009a). Information packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 55-68.
Zareva, A. (2009b). Student academic presentations: The processing side of interactiveness. English Text Construction, 2, 265-288.
Zareva, A. (2011). ‘And so that was it’: Linking adverbials in student academic presentations. RELC Journal, 42, 5-15.
Zareva, A. (2012). Lexical composition of effective L1 and L2 students’ academic presentations. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 91-110.
Zareva, A. (2013). Self-mention and the projection of multiple identity roles in TESOL graduate student presentations: The influence of the written academic genres. English for Specific Purposes, 32, 72-83.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文