Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Effects of Attention-oriented Pre-reading Materials on Situational EAP Reading Motivation and Analysis of Learner Preference
Shu-chen Joy Huang
second language reading
EAP (English for academic purposes)
|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。
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.
|Appears in Collections:||學位論文|
Files in This Item:
|100701.pdf||130.08 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|100702.pdf||343.16 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|100703.pdf||271.33 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|100704.pdf||894.71 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|100705.pdf||157.21 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|100706.pdf||898.34 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.