「口語英文發音縮減」之教學對大學生英文聽解之效益研究

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	王薏婷 WANG YI-TING
論文名稱：	「口語英文發音縮減」之教學對大學生英文聽解之效益研究 An Exploration of the Effects of Reduced Forms Instruction on EFL College Students' Listening Comprehension
指導教授：	柯安娜 Johanna Katchen
口試委員:
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：	2005
畢業學年度：	93
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	120
中文關鍵詞：	口語英文發音縮減、英文聽解、英聽困難、口語英文
外文關鍵詞：	reduced forms, listening comprehension, listening difficulty, spoken English
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

台灣學生普遍認為英文的聽、說、讀、寫四項領域中尤其以「聽」最為困難。英聽之所以困難的原因，其一是由於學生聽英文時不似處於閱讀模式中，可以利用字與字的間距有效地將字與詞句區隔出來。其二是由於口語英文上發音的縮減（reduced forms）使得字的發音與學生所期待的不盡相同。因此，本研究的目的在於探討「口語英文發音縮減」之教學對大學生「口語英文發音縮減」之相關知識及整體英聽能力的影響。同時，學生對英聽的困難點、口語英文發音縮減之種種形式及對口語英文發音縮減教學的意見及觀感也一併調查。
許多第二語言學習的研究指出口語英文上發音的縮減是造成學生無法有效斷句及認字的原因（例如：Fan, 1993; Boyle, 1984; Richards, 1983; Ur, 1984; Underwood, 1989; Rubin, 1994），而這方面的困難進一步造成了學生英文聽解的障礙。Henrichesen於1984年進行的研究探討了口語英文上發音之縮減對學生聽解程度所造成的影響，結果發現以英語為外國語的學生無法有效應付口語英文上發音的縮減，進而導致理解程度的下降。鑒於此種現象，Brown and Hilferty於1986年針對「口語英文發音縮減」提供教學並研究此教學活動對於提升學生整體英聽能力的效果。但是，或許由於實驗時間過短，研究結果無法顯示此教學活動能夠明顯增進學生的英聽能力。因此，「口語英文發音縮減」之教學尚有很多值得研究與探討的地方。
本實驗之研究對象為兩組就讀於清華大學「大一英文」之學生，總計共有72位。學生依隨機原則分派到實驗組與對照組，並於2004學年度的上學期接受為期七次的教學課程。實驗組的學生每二個禮拜接受ㄧ次「口語英文發音縮減」之指導而課程的主要內容為觀看含有口語英文發音縮減實例之影片並進行相關教學活動。對照組的課程安排仿照類似的實驗設計並使用相同的影片，但教學重點為英文聽力的練習。本研究的測驗工具包含英聽能力之前測與後測、「口語英文發音縮減」之聽寫測驗、背景問卷、課程設計問卷及教學效益問卷。
本研究有以下主要發現。一、「口語英文發音縮減」之教學能夠有效提升學生對口語英文發音縮減之認知。二、「口語英文發音縮減」之教學對於提升學生整體英聽能力並沒有顯著助益。三、學生普遍認為口語英文上發音之縮減為他們主要的英聽困難之一，且相較於省略（elision）、縮略（contraction）及同化（assimilation），「連音」被學生認為是本研究四種簡略形式中最為困難的一種。四、雖然實驗數據無法證實「口語英文發音縮減」之教學對學生之整體英文聽力有顯著成效，學生仍然同意此教學活動對於許多英聽的技巧有所助益。同時，學生亦期待「口語英文發音縮減」之教學能夠納入英聽教材及正規英文課程當中。
根據本研究的發現，筆者對未來的相關研究提供以下建議。一、針對學生之整體英文聽力及「口語英文發音縮減」之理解能力施行後後測，藉以評量「口語英文發音縮減」之相關知識的保留程度及「口語英文發音縮減之教學」對英文聽解能力的長期影響。二、另ㄧ個研究的方向為探討「口語英文發音縮減」之相關知識與其他英聽技巧如認字能力、斷字能力的相互關係。同時，筆者亦期待不久的將來能夠看到有學者致力於比較分析「口語英文發音縮減」之不同學習策略之成效。

Listening is considered by Taiwanese students to be the most difficult skill to improve. What is it that makes listening difficult? One reason is that listeners cannot rely on word boundaries to segment a stream of speech as they always do in reading. Another is that reduced forms, that is, phonological simplifications or variations commonly found in spoken English, make the pronunciations of L2 learners’ known words deviant from their expectations. Therefore, this present study aimed to explore the effects of reduced forms instruction on college students’ overall listening comprehension and their reduced forms knowledge. Students’ attitudes toward listening difficulties, types of reduced forms, and reduced forms instruction were surveyed as well.
Two freshman classes at National Tsing Hua University enrolled in the course Freshman English participated in the current study. They were randomly assigned to the experimental and the control group. Every two weeks throughout the fall semester of 2004, the experimental group engaged in a 30-minute lesson by using a previously prepared video clip where manifestations of reduced forms were present for a total of seven sessions. On the other hand, the control group, following the same treatment procedure, engaged in listening comprehension exercises by using the same materials. The instruments included a listening comprehension pretest and posttest, a reduced forms dictation pretest and posttest, a background questionnaire, treatment questionnaires, and evaluation questionnaires.
The major findings of this present study are as follows. First, the reduced forms instruction did significantly raise the experimental group students’ awareness of reduced forms. Hence, reduced forms instruction might enhance students’ reduced forms knowledge. Second, the facilitative effects of reduced forms instruction on students’ overall listening comprehension were not salient because the experimental group did not outperform the control in the listening comprehension posttest. Third, reduced forms were considered by the students to be one of their most common listening problems and linking was the most difficult reduced form type compared to elision, contraction, and assimilation. Fourth, even though the effectiveness of reduced forms instruction in enhancing overall listening comprehension was not confirmed, the experimental group students did approve of the helpfulness of reduced forms instruction in many aspects of their listening. They also expected to see reduced forms instruction incorporated into teaching materials and regular English courses.
For future research, delayed posttests on students’ reduced forms awareness and their listening comprehension are suggested in order to explore the retention of reduced forms knowledge and the longitudinal effects of reduced forms instruction on overall listening ability. In addition, researchers are encouraged to uncover the relationships between reduced forms awareness and other listening component skills such as speech perception, word recognition, or speech segmentation. Finally, the researcher hopes in the near future some studies will emerge to investigate and compare the effects of various strategies of reduced forms learning.

中文摘要....................................................................................………………...    i
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………..    iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………..    v
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………..    vi
LIST OF TABLES…...………………………………………………………….    x
CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION……………………………………………...    1
1.1    Listening vs. reading modality………………………………………...    1
1.2    Definitions of linguistic terminology………………………………….    3

Chapter 2  REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………..    5
2.1    Gap between listening and reading……………………………………    5
2.2    Cognitive process of listening comprehension………………………..    8
2.3    Listening difficulties of EFL students…………………………………    10
2.4    Reduced forms as a difficulty in listening comprehension……………    14
2.5    Effectiveness of teaching reduced forms……………………………...    19
2.6    ESL teachers’ perspectives on reduced forms instruction……………..    21
2.7    Summary………………………………………………………………    23

Chapter 3  METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………    25
3.1    Research questions…………………………………………………….    25
3.2    Overall design of the experiment……………………………………...    26
3.3    Participants and setting………………………………………………..    26
3.4    Instruments…………………………………………………………….    28
3.5    Materials………………………………………………………………    31
3.6    Treatment……………………………………………………………...    32
3.7    Data analysis…………………………………………………………..    35

Chapter 4  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………..    37
4.1    Background questionnaire…………………………………………….    38
4.1.1    Analysis of background questionnaire………………………...    38
4.1.2    Conclusion……………………………………………………..    44
4.2    Both groups’ pretest scores and comparison of their pretest performances…………………………………………………………..
44
4.2.1    Gap between students’ listening and reading comprehension…    44
4.2.2    Comparison of the two groups’ GEPT pretest performances….    45
4.2.3    Comparison of the two groups’ dictation pretest performances.    47
4.2.4    Conclusion……………………………………………………..    48
4.3.    Analysis of treatment questionnaires………………………………….    48
4.3.1    Students’ perceptions about the difficulty level of the videos…    49
4.3.2    Students’ opinions regarding the content and quality of the videos…………………………………………………………..
50
4.3.3    Students’ responses to the presentation and layout of the Powerpoint……………………………………………………..
52
4.3.4    Students’ general perceptions about the treatment activities…..    53
4.3.5    Students’ responses to the pre-listening activities……………..    55
4.3.6    Students’ opinions about the post-listening activities………….    56
4.3.7    The experimental group students’ perceptions about reduced forms activities………………………………………………...
57
4.3.8    Students’ general opinions regarding the treatments…………..    58
4.3.9    Free responses………………………………………………….    59
4.3.10    Conclusion……………………………………………………..    60
4.4.    Students’ posttest scores and comparison of posttest performances…..    60
4.4.1    Comparison of dictation pretest and posttest…………………..    60
4.4.1.1    Comparison of the experimental group’s dictation   pretest and posttest scores…………………………….
60
4.4.1.2    Comparison of the control group’s dictation pretest and posttest scores…………………………………….
61
4.4.2    Comparison of GEPT listening pretest and posttest…………...    63
4.4.2.1    Comparison of the experimental group’s GEPT listening pretest and posttest scores…………………..
63
4.4.2.2    Comparison of the control group’s GEPT listening pretest and posttest scores…………………………….
63
4.4.2.3    Comparison of the two groups’ GEPT listening posttest performances…………………………………
64
4.5.    Analysis of evaluation questionnaires………………………………...    65
4.5.1    Analysis of the experimental group’s evaluation questionnaire.    65
4.5.2    Analysis of the control group’s evaluation questionnaire……..    72
4.6.    Summary………………………………………………………………    75

CHAPTER 5  CONCLUSIONS………….……………………………………    77
5.1.    Limitations of the study……………………………………………….    78
5.2.    Pedagogical implications……………………………………………...    78
5.3.    Suggestions for future research………………………………………..    80
5.4.    Conclusion…………………………………………………………….    81
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..    83

APPENDICES
   Appendix A    Reduced Forms Dictation test……………………………    87
   Appendix B-1      Background Questionnaire……………………………….    91
   Appendix B-2      Background Questionnaire (Chinese version)……………    94
   Appendix C-1      Experimental Group’s Treatment Questionnaire…………    96
   Appendix C-2      Experimental Group’s Treatment Questionnaire (Chinese
version)……………………………………………….......
98
   Appendix D-1      Control Group’s Treatment Questionnaire……………….    100
   Appendix D-2      Control Group’s Treatment Questionnaire (Chinese version)…………………………………………………...
102
   Appendix E-1      Experimental Group’s Evaluation Questionnaire………...    104
   Appendix E-2      Experimental Group’s Evaluation Questionnaire (Chinese version)…………………………………………
106
   Appendix F-1      Control Group’s Evaluation Questionnaire………………    108
   Appendix F-2      Control Group’s Evaluation Questionnaire (Chinese version)……………………………………………...........
109
   Appendix G    Examples of Handouts for the Experimental Group’s Treatment…………………………………………………
110
   Appendix H    Examples of Handouts for the Control Group’s Treatment    116

                                

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Arnold, E. (1994). Gimson’s pronunciation of English. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
Bowen, J. D. (1975). Patterns of English Pronunciation. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Bowen, J. D. (1976). Current research on an integrative test of English grammar. RELC Journal, 7, 30-37.
Boyle, J. P. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT Journal, 38(1), 34-38.
Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (1986). The effectiveness of teaching reduced forms of listening comprehension. RELC Journal, 17(2), 59-70.
Carr, P. (1999). English phonetics and phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Celce-Murica, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, S. W. (2002). Problems in listening comprehension for learners of EFL. Studies in English Language and Literature, 10, 57-70.
Chiang, H. L. (1996). Students introducing their favorite English movies. The 12th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of Chin, 154-476. Taipei: Crane.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Crystal, D. (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Cutler, A. (1997). The comparative perspective on spoken language processing. Speech Communication, 21, 3-15.
Fan, Y. (1993). Listening: Problems and solutions. English Teaching Forum, 31(1), 16-19.
Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELT Journal, 57(2), 325-334.
Gilbert, J. B. (1993). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in American English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55-75.
Hasan, A. (2000). Learners’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 137-152.
Henrichsen, L. E. (1984). Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL. Language Learning, 34(3), 103-126.
Hung, T. N. T. (1993). The role of phonology in the teaching of pronunciation to bilingual students. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 6(3), 249-256.
Ito, Y. (2001). Effect of reduced forms on ESL learners’ input-intake process. Second Language Studies, 20(1), 99-124.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. New York: Pergamon Press.
Lin, L. Y. (2002). The effects of feature films upon learners’ motivation, listening comprehension performance and speaking skills: The Learner-centered approach. Taipei: Crane.
Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 196-204.
Madsen, H. S., & Bowen, J. D. (1978). Adaptation in language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Mohan, A. B., & Lo. A. Y. W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factor. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.
Molholt, G. (1988). Computer-assisted instruction in pronunciation for Chinese speakers of American English. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 91-111.
Morley, J. (1979). Improving spoken English: An intensive personalized program in perception, pronunciation, practice in context. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Norris, R. W. (1993). Teaching reduced forms: An aid for improving lower-level students’ listening skills. Fukuoka Women’s Junior College Studies, 46, 49-56.
Norris, R. W. (1995). Teaching reduced forms: Putting the horse before the cart. English Teaching Forum, 33, 47-50.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 207-225.
Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 219-240.
Rosa, M. (2002). Don’t cha know? A survey of ESL teachers’ perspectives on reduced forms instruction. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 49-78.
Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. London: Longman.
Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. London: Pearson Education.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language journal, 78(2), 199-221.
Ryan, S., & Francais, A. Using films to develop learner motivation. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(11). http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ryan-Films.html
Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 293-317). London: Longman.
Sun, K. C. (2002). Investigation of English listening difficulties of Taiwan students. The 11th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 518-525. Taipei: Crane.
Teng, H. C. (2002). An investigation of EFL listening difficulties for Taiwanese college students. The 11th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 526-533. Taipei: Crane.
Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. London: Longman.
Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinstein, N. (1982). Whaddaya say? Culver City, CA: ESL Publications.
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: HarperCollins.

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