Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/97317
Title: 以提昇注意力為訴求的讀前教材對提昇原文書閱讀動機的效果及學生的偏好分析
Effects of Attention-oriented Pre-reading Materials on Situational EAP Reading Motivation and Analysis of Learner Preference
Authors: 程玉秀
陳秋蘭
Yuh-show Cheng
Chiou-lan Chern
黃淑真
Shu-chen Joy Huang
Keywords: 英語教學
學習動機
外語閱讀
學術英語
TESOL
TEFL
learning motivation
second language reading
EAP (English for academic purposes)
Issue Date: 2004
Abstract: 從文獻發現,外語閱讀的研究常偏重認知層面而輕忽情意因素,故本研究從情意因素面探討學生專業英語的閱讀。在諸多情意因素中,動機雖常被視為外語學習成就的重要指標,但外語學習動機領域仍缺乏實際教學策略的實證研究。本研究即針對此領域,以大專原文教科書為教材,以提昇閱讀動機為目標,根據 Keller的ARCS教學動機設計理論,採用其中第一要素—注意力 (attention) 以設計讀前教材,藉以探討下列問題:(一)此類教材如何影響大專生的閱讀動機,(二)學生對這類教材的偏好,以及(三)不同偏好的學生間是否存在不同的特性。 經由便利取樣,共有來自技職體系及一般綜合大學共一百八十三名商科學生參與本實驗。實驗先進行前測,共收集了五項資料:一般學業動機、學術閱讀動機、英語學習動機、英語閱讀能力、及母語的學術閱讀能力。之後學生經隨機分派至三個實驗小組之一,各組分別依不同順序(abc、bca、cab)採用三種讀前教材:(a)生字解說,(b)心理測驗,及(c)個案研究,以配合閱讀三篇摘自專業原文書長約一千八百字的文章。 生字解說代表較傳統的認知教學,心理測驗及個案研究則為本研究主要的實驗處理。根據 ARCS理論中的提昇注意力準則,心理測驗目的在給予知覺激發,個案研究則在給予探索激發;二者均取自原文書的補充教材並翻譯為中文。實驗流程係請學生先看讀前教材、之後回答測量讀前動機的簡短問卷、再讀原文、回答相同的讀後動機問卷、再回答測試理解程度的中文選擇題。完成三次閱讀及經歷三種不同的實驗處理後,再請學生指出個人所最偏好及最不喜歡的一種讀前教材,並概述原因。 研究結果發現:(一)在前測方面,來自二技的技職生比起普通教育體系的大學生語言能力較低,但學習動機卻較高。(二)在閱讀三篇中之一篇文章時,普通教育體系的學生接受心理測驗者其讀前動機優於接受個案研究者。但整體而言,在提昇動機的效果上,以動機為目標的教材(如心理測驗及個案研究)並未優於傳統認知導向的教材(如生字解說)。(三)三種教材的學生接受度在技職生間不相上下,學生提出的正反面理由各異,顯示出主觀的成分。但在一般大學的學生間,不喜歡個案研究的學生人數較少。(四)經比較各種偏好的學生在前測分數上的差異,發現在喜好方面差異雖不顯著,但不喜歡個案研究者的一般學業動機及英語閱讀能力較不喜歡心理測驗者為低。 綜合上述四點,本研究發現下列教學及研究的意涵:(一)外語教師在運用其他一般教育環境下發展出的動機理論時應更為審慎,且應將外語的能力視為影響動機的因素之一。過去的外語動機理論均不曾將學生外語程度列為解釋動機之因素,本研究建議將此因素列入理論建構的一環。(二)教師應視學生原本的動機水準而決定是否以動機策略介入教學。如 Keller所言,當學生原本動機高時,教師應避免干預,轉而將教學專注在能力的發展;當學生動機低時,教師才需設計動機策略於教學中。(三)原文書的補充教材中,常有豐富的內容,但受限於語言能力,學生常陷於艱深的文字解碼而未能受惠,未蒙其利先受其害。因此,語言教師應妥善運用這些資源,開發對學生有益的教材。(四)個案研究滿足讀者對知識的好奇,而心理測驗提昇較為淺層的注意力,後者對學習可能較無直接助益。兩種動機策略引發的閱讀動機似有不同的性質,與母語相關文獻中對興趣或好奇之性質的分類相似。此為過去外語學習的動機研究中不曾討論過的議題,值得後續研究加以探討。
Literature from the field of L2 reading has tended to focus exclusively on cognitive aspects. Situated in L2 EAP reading, this study attempted to explore motivation, an important affective factor that has been associated with L2 achievement. Among L2 motivational research, there were few empirical studies examining the effectiveness of specific motivational strategies. This study, based on Keller’s ARCS motivation model of instructional strategies, aimed to find out how attention-oriented pre-reading materials affected EFL college students’ situational motivation on EAP reading, how students perceived these motivational materials, and if student preferences were related to certain learner characteristics. With convenience sampling, a total of 183 EFL students from two colleges in Taiwan, including one vocational college and one national university, participated in the experiment. They were given pretests on General Academic Motivation, Academic Reading Motivation, EFL Learning Motivation, EFL Reading Comprehension, and L1 Academic Reading Comprehension. Randomly assigned into three experimental groups, participants received three pre-reading treatments (a) Vocabulary List, (b) Self Appraisal, and (c) Case Study in combination with three EAP expository texts in three weekly class meetings. Vocabulary List represented the traditional cognitive approach. Self Appraisal and Case Study were the major treatments of this study. The former was designed according to Keller’s guideline of perceptual arousal and the latter of his inquiry arousal under the attention component of ARCS model. Both treatments were adapted from authentic content textbooks and translated into participants’ L1. The procedures included having participants (1) work on the treatment materials, (2) rate a 10-item questionnaire indicating their pre-reading situational motivation, (3) read the EAP texts independently, (4) rate the same questionnaire indicating their post-reading situational motivation, and (5) answer comprehension questions in L1. At the end of the experiment, participants reported their most and least preferred treatments and provided written reasons for their preferences and dislikes. The following results were found. First, participants from two college sites were significantly different in many aspects. Participants from the vocational college had higher trait motivation but lower language proficiency and EAP reading comprehension than those from the general educational track. Second, in the national university alone, participants who received the Self Appraisal treatment had higher pre-reading situational motivation than those who received the Case Study treatment for reading the third article. However, motivational materials did not have significant motivational effect in general. Third, on average, participants did not have specific preference over any treatment except that fewer students in the national university disliked Case Study. Fourth, the comparison among participants with different preferences indicated that those who disliked Case Study had lower General Academic Motivation and EFL Reading Comprehension than those who disliked Self Appraisal. Implications from the results include the following. First, L2 teachers should be more cautious about applying motivational theories borrowed from non-L2 settings. Besides, they should consider the relative L2 proficiency as an important factor in L2 motivation. Since none of the existing L2 motivation theories includes learners’ proficiency level as an element influencing motivation, we suggest this to be considered in future theory construction, especially in a theory accounting for the situational characteristics of L2 motivation. Second, the decision of motivational interventions should be based on a learner motivation assessment. As Keller suggested, if learners’ original motivation level is high, teachers should focus on main instruction and not interfere with motivation; if learner motivation is low, motivational strategies will then work to bring it to an optimal level. Third, abundant resources available in authentic content textbooks may serve as a good resource for language teachers if they can carefully help learners overcome the L2 barrier. Fourth, Case Study seemed to induce a curiosity for knowledge while Self Appraisal induced a lower-level attention which may not contribute directly to learning. The difference between induced situational motivation from two types of treatment is somewhat similar to the distinction between types of interest or curiosity in L1 reading literature and has never been discussed in the L2 field. This is an area worth further exploration.
URI: http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=%22http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0088821007%22.&%22.id.&
http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/97317
Other Identifiers: G0088821007
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
100701.pdf130.08 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
100702.pdf343.16 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
100703.pdf271.33 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
100704.pdf894.71 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
100705.pdf157.21 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
100706.pdf898.34 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.