混合式學習環境中教授英語字串對英語為外國語言學生的口語表現之成效

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	羅伊廷 Lo, Yi-Ting
論文名稱：	混合式學習環境中教授英語字串對英語為外國語言學生的口語表現之成效 The Effects of Teaching Formulaic Sequences on EFL Students’ Oral Performance in a Blended Learning Environment
指導教授：	劉顯親 Hsien-Chin Liou
口試委員:	黃虹慈 Huang, Hung-Tzu 張銪容 Chang, Yu-Jung
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：	2013
畢業學年度：	101
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	103
中文關鍵詞：	英語字串、混合式學習環境、口語流暢度
外文關鍵詞：	formulaic sequences, blended learning environment, oral fluency
相關次數：	點閱：2 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

處於將英語當成外國語言(EFL)來學習的環境中，老師們通常沒有太多時間著重在口說技巧的訓練，學生們也很少有機會能在課堂外使用英語。在學界，和口說字彙以及口語流暢度訓練有關的英語字串(Formulaic Sequences; FSs)，被認為是幫助EFL學生們擁有更好英語口說能力的一種解決方案。英語字串是描述語言中的多字詞以單一字詞形式被儲存於長期記憶中的現象；雖然英語字串的益處已經在研究及教學領域中被注意到，但很少研究曾檢驗是否教導EFL學生們英語字串會使學生們在自發性的語言產出(spontaneous speech production)使用更多的英語字串，乃至促進口說流暢。此外，很少探討增進口語流暢度的英語字串研究應用現代網路科技以協助課後練習。
有鑑於相當稀少文獻試著透過電腦輔助語言教學（CALL）的協助來教授與練習英語字串以提升學生們的口語能力，故本研究的目的在探索混合式學習環境(課堂加上課後線上學習)中教授EFL學生們英語字串對於口語流暢度之成效。伴隨著流暢度，學生們對於英語字串的使用情形以及整體口語表現將一併檢視。此外，也會探討接受英語字串教學的學生們如何看待此課程。
本研究採用準實驗組間設計來比較兩個班級的表現。一個班級為實驗組(18位學生)，另一個班級為控制組(5位學生)。兩組都由同一位老師進行教學，而且都接受四週(超過四百分鐘)的教學實驗。本教學實驗包含課內的指導以及課後透過線上英語字串的加強練習。課後的加強練習指的是學生們必須透過網路學習平台上課程內容資料，練習兩次口語演說。兩組的教學重點不同：實驗組被教授英語字串，而控制組被教授單一字彙。所有受試者的口說表現都經由前後測各兩分鐘的演說來評量。還有兩份問卷也分別進一步地去調查受試者的學習背景，和在混合式學習環境中學習英語字串的感想。
透過Mann-Whitney U test無母數檢定，以兩組前後測的表現差異(gain scores)而言，口語流暢度及整體口語表現在統計上並無顯著的差異。然而，當探討受試者使用英語字串的情形時，在FRR的數據方面顯示出些微統計上的差異，實驗組在這方面的表現持平(後測時比控制組退步較少)。藉由描述性統計，感知問卷的結果顯示出實驗組對於本教學實驗持正面肯定的態度，且實驗組也在本教學實驗中肯定英語字串的價值。針對本實驗呈現出無統計上顯著差異的結果，歸納出三種可能的原因：兩次演說主題難度不同(實驗設計下的產物)、教學實驗的時間不夠長、以及受試者對於英語字串學習的投入程度不足。
雖然本研究仍需克服一些缺點以使得教學實驗的成效更明顯，不過它提供了一個融入英語字串教學於台灣教室內教學的可行例子。一方面，本研究結果顯示可以運用科技及英語字串幫助學生在家練習口說；另一方面，根據實驗組在感知問卷的正向回應，他們對於本研究所設計的混合式學習環境之肯定，可在教學方面對其他相似的EFL學習環境有所啟發。期許本研究的努力能鼓勵未來的研究者去持續探究英語字串教學是否能或是該如何協助增進口語流暢度、英語字串的使用，以及整體的口說表現。

In learning English as a foreign language (EFL) context, teachers often have limited time available to work on speaking skills and students also have few opportunities for using the target language outside the classroom. Therefore, the use of formulaic sequences (FSs), which is related to spoken vocabulary and fluency training, has been considered one of the solutions to help students in EFL settings have better command of English speaking. Formulaic sequences (FSs) is one of the terms describing the phenomenon of multiword units of language stored in long-term memory as if they are single lexical units. Although the beneficial roles of FSs have been noticed in research and pedagogical fields, limited studies have examined whether teaching EFL students FSs leads to their greater use of FSs in spontaneous speech production. Additionally, very few FSs studies dealing with enhancing speaking fluency have applied current internet technology for homework practice.
Since scant research has tried to address the issue of enhancing students’ oral proficiency through the instruction of noticing and practicing the use of FS with the assistance of CALL, the current study explored the effects of teaching FSs on EFL students’ oral fluency in a blended learning environment. Along with fluency, the use of FSs and general oral performance of the students were examined. Besides, how the students perceived the effectiveness of such instruction was investigated.
A quasi-experimental between-group design was adopted with two intact classes who respectively served as an experimental group (18 students) and a control group (5 students). Instructed by the same teacher, the two groups were given a four-week (more than 400 minutes) pedagogical intervention including in-class instruction and after-class reinforcement through CALL tasks (the experimental group was given exposure to two phrase lists and gave two practice speeches using items from the lists). Different instructional foci were set for the two groups: the experimental group was taught FSs while the control group was led to learn individual vocabulary words. All participants’ oral performance was assessed by a pretest and a posttest of giving a two-minute speech. Further, two questionnaires were designed to respectively look into the participants’ learning background and perceptions of learning FSs in the blended learning environment.
By means of Mann-Whitney U test which compared the two groups’ gain scores from the pretest and the posttest, no statistically significant progress on oral fluency and general oral performance was found. However, when examining the participants’ use of FSs, the gain scores of FRR showed slightly statistically significant, which could be interpreted as that the experimental group remained at a similar level in this regard. The control group, in contrast, showed a regress of FSs use. Through descriptive statistics, responses obtained from the perception questionnaire indicated that the experimental group held positive attitude toward the intervention, wherein the experimental group became aware of the value of FSs as well. Three possible factors may explain the no-difference findings: different difficulty levels of speech topics (an artifact due to research design), short exposure to FSs intervention, and the participants’ lack of investment in learning FSs.
Even though the current study needs to overcome many limitations to make the effects of intervention more explicit, it provides a starting point for integrating FSs instruction into a college EFL classroom in Taiwan. On the one hand, the current study demonstrates the feasibility of applying technology in company with FSs to help students gain access to practicing speaking at home. On the other, the feedback from the participants seemed to indicate the instruction as designed in the blended learning environment for teaching and practicing FSs was useful and thus supported pedagogical implications of the current study for other similar EFL contexts. These may encourage future researchers to study whether and how the instruction of formulaic sequences can help promote fluency, use of more FSs, or speaking performance in general.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

中文摘要……………………………………………………………….………………………i
Abstract ………………………………………………………….…………..…………….…ii
Aknowledgements …….......…………………………………….…………..…………....…iv
Table of Contents ……………...………………………………….……….…………...…….v
List of Tables …………..……………………………………………...…….……………….ix
List of Figures …………………………..………………………………………….....……...x
Chapter 1 Introduction     1
Chapter 2 Literature Review     3
2.1 Overview     3
2.2 Fluency & formulaic sequences     3
2.2.1 Defining fluency     3
2.2.2 Defining formulaic sequences     4
2.2.3 The AFL and the PHRASE List     7
2.2.4 Oral fluency and FSs memorization     10
2.2.5 Classroom activities for fluency training in FSs interventions     12
2.3 Focal studies of teaching formulaic sequences     14
2.4 Technology for speaking training: Some recent studies in Taiwan     24
2.4.1 Automatic speech recognition     24
2.4.2 Audiotaped dialogue journals     26
2.4.3 Voice blogs     26
2.4.4 Voiced-based synchronous computer mediated communication     28
2.5 Needed research     29
Chapter 3 Methodology     31
3.1 Overview     31
3.2 Participants and setting     31
3.3 Pedagogical treatment     32
3.4 Teaching materials     38
3.4.1 In-class main materials     38
3.4.2 In-class worksheets     38
3.4.3 After-class supplementary materials     39
3.5 Data collection     40
3.5.1 Pretest and posttest     40
3.5.2 Questionnaires     41
3.6 Data analysis     41
3.6.1 Research question one     41
3.6.1.1 Oral fluency     42
3.6.1.2 The use of formulaic sequences     45
3.6.1.3 General oral performance     46
3.6.2 Research question two     48
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion     49
4.1 Overview     49
4.2 Results     49
4.2.1 Differences of fluency from the pretest to the posttest     49
4.2.1.1 Speech rate     50
4.2.1.2 Mean length of run     51
4.2.2 Differences of the use of formulaic sequences from the pretest to the posttest.    52
4.2.2.1 Formula/run ratio     52
4.2.2.2 Samples of students’ use of FSs     53
4.2.3 Differences of general oral performance from the pretest to the posttest     55
4.2.4 Students’ perceptions of the designed instruction of formulaic sequences     56
4.2.4.1 Mean scores and mean ranks of the items     56
4.2.4.2 Mean scores and mean ranks of each of four sections     59
4.2.5 Summary of the results     60
4.3 Discussion     61
4.3.1 Different difficulty levels of speech topics     61
4.3.2 Short exposure to FSs intervention     63
4.3.3 The participants’ lack of enough investment in learning FSs     65
Chapter 5 Conclusion     67
5.1 Overview     67
5.2 Limitations of the study     68
5.3 Directions for future research     69
5.4 Research implications     70
5.5 Pedagogical implications     71
References     72
Appendices     79
Appendix A Consent form     79
Appendix B A sample lesson plan for the experimental group     80
Appendix C A sample transcript with highlighted FSs     82
Appendix D A sample of the weekly assigned PHRASE List     83
Appendix E The abridged AFL     87
Appendix F A sample lesson plan for the control group     90
Appendix G A sample transcript with highlighted vocabulary     92
Appendix H A sample of the weekly assigned AWL     93
Appendix I A sample of gap-filling worksheet     96
Appendix J The material for the pretest     97
Appendix K The material for the posttest     98
Appendix L Background questionnaire     99
Appendix M Perception questionnaire     100
Appendix N Two groups’ grading criteria of speeches in the pretest, posttest and on Moodle      101
Appendix O A coded sample from the pretest by one participant in the EG     102
Appendix P A coded sample from the posttest by one participant in the EG    103
 

                                

Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27-39.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 29-59.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of mutiword units. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 215-221.
Chang, L.-Y., & Yang, Y.-T. C. (2008). No improvement—reflections and suggestions on the use of Skype to enhance college students’ oral English proficiency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 721-725.
Chen, H. H.-J. (2011). Developing and evaluating an oral skills training website supported by automatic speech recognition technology. ReCALL, 23(01), 59-78.
Chiu, T.-L., Liou, H.-C., & Yeh, Y. (2007). A Study of web-based oral activities enhanced by Automatic Speech Recognition for EFL college learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 209-233.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238.
Daise, D., Norloff, C., & Carne, P. (2011). Q: Skills for Success 4 - Reading and Writing:
Oxford University Press.
Dai, Z. & Ding, Y. (2010). Effectiveness of text memorization in EFL learning of Chinese students. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language: Acquisition and Communication (pp. 71-87). London: Continuum.
Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of English. System, 35, 271-280.
Ejzenberg, R. (2000). The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 287-313). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. Text, 20, 29-62.
Fillmore, C. (2000). On fluency. H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 43-60). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 75-93). Harlow: Longman.
Freed. B. F. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Freed. B. F. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes (and ears) of the beholder? In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp. 287-313). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Gamble, J., Tang, S.-Y. S., & Yang, Y.-T. C. (2012). Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 448-464.
Gatbonton, E., & N. Segalowitz, B. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325-353.
Hatch, E. M., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Ho, Y. K. (2003). Audiotaped dialogue journals: an alternative form of speaking practice. ELT Journal, 57(3), 269-277.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24-44.
Huang, H. W. (2005). The relationship between learning motivation and speaking anxiety among EFL non-English major freshmen inTaiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan).
Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and Researching Speaking. Harlow: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O'Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49.
Koponen, & Riggenbach, H. (2000). In Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency (pp.5-24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145-164.
Kost, C. R. (2004). An investigation of the effects of synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on interlanguage development in beginning learners of German: accuracy, proficiency, and communication strategies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 4, 1346. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3131612)
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387-417.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M., & Conzett, J. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M., & Gough, C. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2008a). The mnemonic effect of noticing alliteration in lexical chunks. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 200-222.
Lindstromberg, S., & Boers, F. (2008b). Phonemic repetition and the learning of lexical chunks: The power of assonance. System, 36(3), 423-436.
McGuire, M. (2009). Formulaic sequences in English conversation: Improving spoken fluency in non-native speakers (MA Thesis. University of North Texas).
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A Phrasal Expressions List. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299-320.
Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377-384.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and Some Implications for Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242.
Oxford English Dictionary online version, June 2012. Second edition, 1989; <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/72066>; accessed 10 September 2012.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-227). New York: Longman.
Ricard, E. (1986). Beyond fossilization: A course on strategies and techniques in pronunciation for advanced adult learners. TESL Canada Journal Special Edition, 1, 243-253.
Riggenbach, H. (1991). Toward an understanding of fluecny: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversations. Discourse Process, 14, 423-441.
Riggenbach, H. (2000). Perspectives on Fluency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Read, J., & Nation, P. (2004). Measurement of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use (pp.23-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88-103.
Sun, Y. C. (2012). Examining the effectiveness of extensive speaking practice via vioce blogs in a foreign language learning context. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 494-506.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 433-458.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Building language blocks in L2 Japanese: Chunk learning and the development of complexity and fluency in spoken production. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 132-156.
Ting, Y. R. (2004). Learning English text by heart in a Chinese university. Xi’an: Shanxi Normal University Press.
Towell, R. (1987). Variability and progress in the language development of advanced learners of a foreign language. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in Context (pp. 113- 127). Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84-119.
Wajnryb, R., & Maley, A. (1990). Grammar Dictation. New York: Oxford University Press.
West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman.
Wood, D. (1998). Making the grade: An interactive course in English for academic purposes. Toronto: Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.
Wood, D. (2009a). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(1), 39-57.
Wood, D. (2009b). Preparing ESP Learners for workplace placement. ELT Journal, 63(4), 323-331.
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic Language and Second Language Speech Fluency: Background, Evidence and Classroom Applications. London: Continuum.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. (2004). “Here’s one I prepared earlier”: Formulaic language learning on television. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 249-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wray, A & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. In F. Meunier & Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 123-148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1-28.

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