淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


系統識別號 U0002-1406201909543600
中文論文名稱 語料驅動學習:複合學習模式在英語為外語課堂的運用:以假設語氣文法為例
英文論文名稱 Learning Conditional Clauses with Data-Driven Learning: Integrated Learning Mode Implemented in EFL Classes in Taiwan
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 課程與教學研究所碩士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of Curriculum and Instruction
學年度 107
學期 2
出版年 108
研究生中文姓名 王睿賢
研究生英文姓名 Rui Sian Wang
學號 604750249
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2019-06-11
論文頁數 123頁
口試委員 指導教授-林銘輝
委員-張月霞
委員-林進瑛
中文關鍵字 語料驅動學習  英文假設語氣  文法翻譯法  部分遠距教學 
英文關鍵字 Data-Driven Learning  English Conditional Clauses  Grammar-Translation Method  Semi-Distance Education 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在過去的數十年中,已經有許多關於語料驅動學習(Data-Driven Learning; DDL)的實證研究證實了DDL的效果;然而,現時的研究調查大多主要在研究DDL用於教授相對固定的語言結構的成效,對於DDL在相對抽象的語法教學(如假設語氣)的功效所知甚少。為了彌平研究缺口,且更全面地評估DDL的成效,本研究對臺灣兩組大學一年級的EFL學生進行了實證比較,他們分別進入以DDL或文法翻譯法(Grammar-Translation Method; GTM)教學的兩種課堂,以實體課程搭配遠距教學活動的方式(部分遠距教學模式),學習英文假設語氣的四種條件句。兩組學生在語法上的表現透過前測、後測和延遲後測檢驗,然後透過SPSS的相依樣本t檢定和獨立樣本t檢定進行分析。研究結果指出,兩組學生均顯著改善了他們英文假設語氣的文法使用能力。DDL的表現優於GTM,但DDL的成就測驗分數在延遲後測中退步地比GTM多,由此可推測,DDL可以幫助學習者提高語法能力,但GTM有助於長期表現的發展。在學習動機與自我效能方面,GTM在實驗介入後有統計學上的提升,而DDL則持平,這反映出臺灣學生在某種程度上仍然習慣於GTM等類型的傳統演繹教學法。建議未來的教育工作者在使用DDL或GTM教學時可以權衡兩種方法的優、缺點。
英文摘要 Over the past decades, many empirical studies have been conducted and thrown evidence in support of DDL’s efficacy in general. However, current investigations have mostly been performed to examine the effects of DDL on relatively fixed linguistic patterns. Little has been known about DDL’s efficacy on relatively abstract grammatical rules, such as conditional clauses. To fill this research gap so as to assess the effects of DLL in a fuller degree, this study carried out an empirical comparison between two groups of first-year Taiwanese EFL students who were taught four types of conditional clauses, separately with either DDL or GTM, integrated with distance learning activities. Both groups’ performances in grammar was examined by using pre-, post- and delayed post-tests and then analyzed by means of paired-sample and independent-sample t-tests in SPSS. The results indicated that both groups significantly improved their use of English conditional clauses. DDL outperformed GTM, but DDL’s scores regressed more than GTM’s did in the delayed post-test, which was believed that DDL could help for learners’ grammar improvement, whereas GTM could help with long-term performance. In terms of learners’ motivation and self-efficacy, GTM had statistical gains after the treatment, whereas DDL stayed at the same level, which reflected the fact that to some extent, Taiwanese students are still accustomed to conventional deductive approaches, such as the GTM used here in this study. Future educators may like to weigh the pros and cons of both methods when using either of them.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I
CHINESE ABSTRACT III
ENGLISH ABSTRACT IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES VIII
LIST OF FIGURES X
LIST OF APPENDICES XI
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 7
1.3 Significance of the Study 8
1.4 Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Data-Driven Learning in the EFL Context 10
2.1.1 Practice and Development of Data-Driven Learning 10
2.1.2 Shortcomings Found in Practice of DDL Approach 13
2.2 Distance and Semi-Distance Education 14
2.2.1 Development of Distance Education 14
2.2.2 The Inception of Semi-Distance Education and Its Practice in Taiwan 16
CHAPTER THREE METHODS 18
3.1 Research Questions 18
3.2 Participants 19
3.3 Research Procedure 19
3.4 Treatments 21
3.5 Grammar Achievement Tests 29
3.5.1 Quality of the Pre-Test 29
3.5.2 Quality of the Post-Test 35
3.6 Learning Motivation and Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 41
3.6.1 Item Analysis 42
3.6.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis 44
3.6.3 Reliability Analysis 46
3.7 Instruction Evaluation Survey 47
3.8 Data Analysis 47
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 49
4.1 Grammar Achievement Tests 49
4.1.1 40-item Grammar Achievement Tests 49
4.1.2 18-item Grammar Achievement Tests 51
4.2 Delayed Post Grammar Achievement Tests 54
4.2.1 40-item Delayed Post Grammar Achievement Tests 54
4.2.2 18-item Delayed Post Grammar Achievement Tests 56
4.3 Learning Motivation and Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 58
4.4 Instruction Evaluation Survey 64
4.4.1 Quantitative Results 64
4.4.2 Qualitative Results 73
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 85
5.1 Discussion 85
5.2 Limitation of the Study and Suggestions for Future Studies 87
5.3 Implications for Teachers 88
5.3.1 Implications for GTM Teachers 88
5.3.2 Implications for DDL Teachers 88
5.4 Conclusion 89
REFERENCES 91
APPENDICES 97


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.5.1 Item Analysis for the YNQ in the Pre-Test 31
Table 3.5.2 Item Analysis for the MCQ in the Pre-Test 32
Table 3.5.3 Item Analysis for the Selected YNQ in the Pre-Test 33
Table 3.5.4 Item Analysis for the Selected MCQ in the Pre-Test 34
Table 3.5.5 Reliability Analysis for the Pre-Test 35
Table 3.5.6 Item Analysis for the YNQ in the Post-Test 37
Table 3.5.7 Item Analysis for the MCQ in the Post-Test 38
Table 3.5.8 Item Analysis for the Selected YNQ in the Post-Test 39
Table 3.5.9 Item Analysis for the Selected MCQ in the Post-Test 40
Table 3.5.10 Reliability Analysis for the Post-Test 41
Table 3.6.1 Item Analysis on Learning Motivation and Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 43
Table 3.6.2 Reliability Statistics on LMSE Questionnaire 44
Table 3.6.3 KMO and Bartlett's Test 44
Table 3.6.4 Report Summary of LMSE Questionnaire 45
Table 3.6.5 Reliability Analysis Results of the Subscales by Cronbach’s Alpha 46
Table 4.1.1 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre-test Grammar Exam 49
Table 4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of Both Groups in the Pre- and Post-test 50
Table 4.1.3 Paired-Sample t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre- and Post-test 50
Table 4.1.4 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Post-test Grammar Exam 51
Table 4.1.5 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre-test Grammar Exam 52
Table 4.1.6 Descriptive Statistics of Both Groups in the Pre- and Post-test 52
Table 4.1.7 Paired-Sample t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre- and Post-test 53
Table 4.1.8 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Post-test Grammar Exam 53
Table 4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics of Both Groups in the Tests 54
Table 4.2.2 Paired-Sample t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre-, Post-, Delayed Post-test 55
Table 4.2.3 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Delayed Post-test 55
Table 4.2.4 Descriptive Statistics of Both Groups in the Tests 56
Table 4.2.5 Paired-Sample t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre-, Post-, Delayed Post-test 57
Table 4.2.6 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Delayed Post-test 57
Table 4.3.1 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Pre-test 58
Table 4.3.2 Descriptive Statistical Results of SPSS 59
Table 4.3.3 Paired-Sample t-Test of DDL’s Pre- and Post-test 60
Table 4.3.4 Descriptive Statistical Results of SPSS 61
Table 4.3.5 Paired-Sample t-Test of GTM’s Pre- and Post-test 62
Table 4.3.6 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Post-test 63
Table 4.4.1 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ First Survey (TYPE 0) 65
Table 4.4.2 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Second Survey (TYPE I) 66
Table 4.4.3 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Third Survey (TYPE II) 67
Table 4.4.4 Independent t-Test of Both Groups’ Fourth Survey (TYPE III) 68
Table 4.4.5 Mean Scores and SD of Both Groups’ Surveys in Each Dimension 69
Table 4.4.6 Open Codes Generated from GTM’s Q1 in Survey 74
Table 4.4.7 Positive and Negative Codes of GTM’s Q1 in Survey 75
Table 4.4.8 Open Codes Generated from DDL’s Q1 in Survey 76
Table 4.4.9 Positive and Negative Codes of DDL’s Q1 in Survey 77


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1.1 An Example Unit of the Components of Sentences in a Textbook 3
Figure 1.1.2 A Sample of DDL Unit 4
Figure 3.3.1 Research Flow Diagram 20
Figure 3.4.1 Online Preview Material for GTM Class 22
Figure 3.4.2 Online Preview Material for DDL Class 23
Figure 3.4.3 Sample Exercise Questions 24
Figure 3.4.4 Material Used in GTM Class 26
Figure 3.4.5 Material Used in DDL Class 28
Figure 4.4.1 Two Group’s Means of Total in the Four Surveys 70
Figure 4.4.2 Two Group’s Means of TTA Dimension in Four Surveys 71
Figure 4.4.3 Two Group’s Means of TM Dimension in Four Surveys 72
Figure 4.4.4 Two Group’s Means of LM Dimension in Four Surveys 72
Figure 4.4.5 Two Group’s Means of LE Dimension in Four Surveys 73


LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: The User Interface of Moodle Platform 97
Appendix B: Materials for GTM (Type Zero, I, II and III) 100
Appendix C: Materials for DDL (Type Zero, I, II and III) 104
Appendix D: A Sample Operating Process of Online Grammar Exercises 108
Appendix E: Grammar Achievement Pre-Test 111
Appendix F: Grammar Achievement Post-Test 113
Appendix G: Learning Motivation and Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 115
Appendix H: Instruction Evaluation Survey 118
Appendix I: Instruction Evaluation Survey Results (Survey 1) 120
Appendix J: Instruction Evaluation Survey Results (Survey 2) 121
Appendix K: Instruction Evaluation Survey Results (Survey 3) 122
Appendix L: Instruction Evaluation Survey Results (Survey 4) 123
參考文獻 Aguirre Morales, J., & Ramos Holguín, B. (2009). Guidance in reading strategies: A first step towards autonomous learning in a semi-distance education program. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, (11), 41-56.
Alattar, A. (2014). Content-Based Instruction and Corpus Linguistics Curriculum for Early Advanced EFL Saudi Students.
Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42.
Bååth, J. A. (1985). A note on the origin of distance education. ICDE Bulletin, 7, 61-62.
Bennet, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Boulton, A. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(01), 37-54.
Bravo Ibarra, E. R., Enache, C. M., Fernández Alarcón, V., & Simó Guzmán, P. (2010). An innovative teaching practice based on online channels: A qualitative approach. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(2), 112-122.
Campoy, M. C., Cubillo, M. C. C., Belles-Fortuno, B., & Gea-Valor, M. L. (Eds.). (2010). Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. A&C Black.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Chase, C. I. (1978). Measurement for educational evaluation (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesle.
Chen, X.-B. (陳星貝). (2007). 提升國人英語能力並與世界接軌. 台灣教育, (647), 57-58.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 345-360.
Danielsson, P., & Mahlberg, M. (2003). There is more to knowing a language than knowing its words: Using parallel corpora in the bilingual classroom. English for Specific Purposes World, 3(6), 1-11.
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
Durrant, P. (2009). Investigating the viability of a collocation list for students of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 157-169.
Feng, J.-H., (2018 June 8). 會考今寄成績單 表現最差仍是英、數但有進步. 聯合報. Retrieved from https://udn.com/news/story/7266/3187101
Fernandez, V., Simo, P., Algaba, I., Albareda-Sambola, M., Salan, N., Amante, B., Enache, M., Bravo, E.R., Suñe, A., Garcia-Almiñana, D., Rajadell, M., & Garriga, F. (2011). 'Low-Cost educational videos' for engineering students: a new concept based on video streaming and Youtube channels. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(3), 518.
Frohlich, G. L. (2004). Towards supporting tutoring in a semi-distance environmental education course: a Namibian case study (Doctoral dissertation).
Galusha, J. M. (1998). Barriers to learning in distance education.
Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovations in distance education. Distance education, 6(2), 235-241.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?. System, 32(3), 301-319.
Geluso, J., & Yamaguchi, A. (2014). Discovering formulaic language through data-driven learning: Student attitudes and efficacy. ReCALL, 26(2), 225-242.
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching. The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 359370.
Hirata, Y., Hirata, Y., & Thompson, P. (2013). Two Different Types of Corpora: Japanese Students’ Perceptions. In International Conference on ICT in Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-15). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Holmberg, B. (1977). Distance education: a survey and bibliography. New York, NY: Nichols Publishing Co.
Huang, B.-R., (2018 March 14). 教育警訊? 學測英文作文逾1.4萬人零分. TVBS News. Retrieved from https://news.tvbs.com.tw/life/884163
Huang, L. S. (2011). Corpus-aided language learning. ELT Journal, ccr031.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Johns, T. (1988). Whence and whither classroom concordancing. Computer applications in language learning, 9-27.
Johns, T. (1991a). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials (pp. 1-13).
Johns, T. (1991b). From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. Classroom Concordancing. English Language Research Journal 4, 27-45.
Johns, T., & King, P. (1991). Classroom Concordancing: English Language Research Journal, 4. University of Birmingham: Centre for English Language Studies.
Keegan, D. J. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance education, 1(1), 13-36.
Kilgarriff, A. (2009). Corpora in the classroom without scaring the students. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China.
Kılıçkaya, F. (2015). Computer-based grammar instruction in an EFL context: Improving the effectiveness of teaching adverbial clauses. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4), 325-340.
Koosha, M., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 192-209.
Krieger, D. (2003). Corpus linguistics: What it is and how it can be applied to teaching. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(3).
Landure, C., & Boulton, A. (2010). Corpus et autocorrection pour l’apprentissage des langues. ASp. la revue du GERAS, (57), 11-30.
Lee, H. C. (2013). Investigating the effects of student learning of English using COL approach based on situational theories. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2211-2217.
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.
Lin, M. H. (2016). Effects of corpus-aided language learning in the EFL grammar classroom: A case study of students’ learning attitudes and teachers’ perceptions in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly.DOI: 10.1002/tesq.250
Lin, M. H., & Lee, J. Y. (2017). Pedagogical suitability of data-driven learning in EFL grammar classes: A case study of Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Research, 1362168817740899.
Lin, M. H., & Lee, J.-Y. (2015). Data-driven learning: Changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, 69(3), 264-274.
Lin, M. H., & Wang, R. S. (2016). Corpus-aided language teaching: Transforming EFL grammar teachers in Taiwan: A case study. The 33rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning: Vision and Passion for English Teaching and Learning. Changhua, Taiwan.
Meacham, E. D., & Evans, D. E. (1982). Distance education: The design of study materials.
Mishan, F. (2004). Authenticating corpora for language learning: a problem and its resolution. ELT Journal, 58(3), 219-227.
Moore, M. G. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661-679.
Noll V. H., Scannell, D. P., & Craig, R. C. (1979). Introduction to educational measurement (4th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
O'Keeffe, A., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. Routledge.
O'Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Olgren, C. H., & Parker, L. A. (1983). Teleconferencing technology and applications. Artech House, Inc..
O'Sullivan, Í. (2007). Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. ReCALL, 19(03), 269-286.
Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Sedghi, A., Arnett, G., & Chalabi, M. (2013). Pisa 2012 results: which country does best at reading, maths and science. The Guardian.
Simo, P., Salan, N., Fernández, V., Algaba, I., Enache, M., Suñe, A., Bravo, E.R., lbareda, M., Garriga, F., Rajadell, M., Amante, B., & Garcia, D. (2009). Video stream y canales docentes: Análisis de la utilización de vídeos. In XIII Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización (pp. 1839-1848).
Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in practice: Making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children & Society, 18(2), 106-118.
Smart, J. (2014). The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning. ReCALL, 26(2), 184-201.
Smith, S. (2011). Learner construction of corpora for general English in Taiwan. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 291-316.
Someya, Y. (2000). Online business letter corpus KWIC concordancer and an experiment in data-driven learning/writing. In 3rd Association for Business Communication International Conference, Kyoto (Vol. 9).
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Talai, T., & Fotovatnia, Z. (2012). Data-driven learning: A student-centered technique for language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1526.
Tamney, J. B., & Chiang, H. L. (2002). Modernization, globalization, and Confucianism in Chinese societies. Westport, CT: Praegar.
Tyne, H. (2009). Corpus oraux par et pour l'apprenant. Mélanges CRAPEL (http://revues. univ-nancy2. fr/melangesCrapel/), 31, 91-111.
Yeh, Y., Liou, H. C., & Li, Y. H. (2007). Online synonym materials and concordancing for EFL college writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 131-152.
Yunus, K. (2014). The Impact of Data-Driven Learning Instruction on Malaysian Law Undergraduates' Colligational Competence. Kajian Malaysia, 32(1), 79.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2024-06-19公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2024-06-19起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2486 或 來信