本研究是為了探討透過心智圖進行推測對聽力理解的成效。研究對象來自台灣北部一所大學，有119人在2005年參與第一次的研究；另105人在2006年參與第二次相同步驟且同教材的研究。所有的參與者皆平均分配為三個組別：事先教關鍵字組、透過關鍵字進行推測組及透過心智圖進行推測組。在事先教關鍵字組中，參與者每個人都發給一張講義，上面有關鍵字及中英文解說的例句，老師會講解不會的單字，並帶全班唸講義中的關鍵字跟例句。在透過關鍵字進行推測組中，參與者先分成幾個小組，每個小組都給予一張有關鍵字的講義，而這些關鍵字僅以條列式方式呈現，各組的參與者透過關鍵字對即將要聽的內容進行推測，並將所推測的可能性跟小組員討論。在透過心智圖進行推測組中，參與者先分成幾個小組，每個小組都給予一張有關鍵字的心智圖，也就是關鍵字以心智圖的方式呈現，各組的參與者透過心智圖對即將要聽的內容進行推測，並將所推測的可能性跟小組員討論 。研究者挑選兩篇獨白性的文章做為測試成效的聽力文章，而實驗中使用於三組的關鍵字則是分別從這兩篇文章中選取。兩篇單選題的聽力測驗分別在兩次實驗完後進行施測。結果顯示，透過心智圖進行推測組的學習者可能比透過關鍵字進行推測組或事先教關鍵字組的學習者在聽力理解上效果較為顯著；由其是像第二篇文章裡有較多訊息、較多令人困惑的指涉性詞語(referring expression)，而一方面卻較少能使文章結構更明顯的言談標記(discourse marker)的文章，效果更為顯著。然而本研究的發現僅限於本研究所使用的兩篇文章，為了能確定心智圖的成效，後續的研究應控制好變數，以探討是否使用其他文章也會有其成效。

The study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of making inferences about what to be heard through mind maps on listening comprehension.  One hundred and nineteen freshmen at a university in northern Taiwan participated in the first study in 2005; one hundred and five students from the same school were recruited for the replicated study in 2006.  Participants either in the first or the replicated study were divided into the three groups: the pre-teaching keyword group, the keyword inference group, and the mind map group.  In the pre-teaching keyword group, the subjects were given a handout with the keywords with the explanations as well as the sample sentences both in Chinese and English.  The instructor explained the unknown words and led the whole class to read all of the keywords and the sample sentences.  In the keyword inference group, subjects were divided into several teams, and they were asked to make inferences about what to be heard through a list of keywords given, and shared their inferences with other teammates.  In the mind map group, subjects were divided into several teams, they were asked to make inferences about what to be heard through the teacher-constructed mind maps, and shared their inferences with other teammates.  Two monologues were chosen, based on explicitness and directness of the information, for the listening passages to be tested, and the keywords used among the three groups were selected respectively from the two passages.  Two multiple-choice comprehension tests were conducted respectively right after the treatments.  Results showed that the subjects who made inferences about what to be heard through the mind map may comprehend more than those who received the pre-teaching instruction and those who made inferences through a list of keywords, especially in the second text which contain more messages and confusing referring expressions but less necessary discourse markers to make the text more salient.  However, these findings are only limited to these two particular texts used in this research.  For confirmation, a bigger study that uses different texts but contains similar elements is needed.

Table of Contents
                                                           
CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………………….i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………..v
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………viii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………..ix

CHAPTER ONE– INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………………..1
1.2 Statements of the Problem………………………………………………………..……2
1.3 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………….…..4
1.4 Research Questions………………………………………………………………….…6
1.5 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………….…7
1.6 Definitions of Terms………………………………………………………………….…7

CHAPTER TWO—REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1  Nature of Listening……………………………………………………………………10
2.2 Teaching Listening………………………………………………………………………13
   2.2.1 Pre-listening Activities……………………………………………………………14
   2.2.2 Predicting before listening………………………………………………………..15
   2.2.3 Teaching Listening through Visuals……………………………………………...17
2.3  Mindmapping…………………………………………………………………………18
2.3.1 Mindmapping: its Genesis………………………………………………………18
2.3.2 Mindmapping: External Representation of Radiant Thinking……………….20
2.3.3 Elements of Mindmapping………………………………………………………21
2.3.4 Benefits of Mindmapping ……………………………………………………….22
2.3.5 Why Use Mind Maps to Present the Information……………………………...23
2.3.6 The Potential of Using Mind Maps for the Pre-listening Activities…………..30
2.4 Recent Research Studies……………………………………………………………….32
2.4.1 Recent Research on Mindmapping…………………….………………………32
    2.4.2 Relevant Research on Visual Organizers………………..…………………….33

CHAPTER THREE—METHODOLOGY
	3.1 Subjects…………………………………………………………………………….40
	3.2 Instruments………………………………………………………………………...42
       3.2.1 Teaching Materials ………………………………………………………….42
       3.2.2 Testing Instruments………………………………………………………….46
    3.3 Procedures………………………………………………………………………….48
    3.4 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………54

CHAPTER FOUR—RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
	4.1 Results……………………………………………………………………………...55
       4.1.1  Results of the First Study…………………………………………………55
       4.1.2  Results of the Replicated Study…………………………………………..59
    4.2 Discussions…………………………………………………………………………62
       4.2.1 Research Question One……………………………………………………..63
       4.2.2 Research Question Two……………………………………………………..66
       4.2.3 Research Question Three…………………………………………………...69

CHAPTER FIVE—CONCLUSIONS 
	5.1 Summary of the Study……………………………………………………….……72
    5.2 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………..74
    5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………75
    5.4 Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………………………77

REFERNCES…………………………………………………………………..79
APPENDIX A: The “Shopping Problem” Mind Map…...…………………….84
APPENDIX B: The “Future Job” Mind Map………………………………….84
APPENDIX C: The “Hotel” Mind Map……………………………………….85
APPENDIX D: The Handout of “Dorm Rules” for the Pre-teaching Keyword 
Group…………………………………………………………..86
APPENDIX E: The Handout of “An Unfair Experience at a Restaurant” for the Pre-teaching Keyword Group………………………………….87
APPENDIX F: The Handout of “Dorm Rules” for the Keyword Inference Group…………………………………………………………..88
APPENDIX G: The Handout of “An Unfair Experience at a Restaurant” for the Keyword Inference Group……………………………………..89
APPENDIX H: The “Dorm Rules” Passage…………………………………...90
APPENDIX I: The “An Unfair Experience” at a Restaurant Passage…………90
APPENDIX J: The First Post-test……………………………………………..91
APPENDIX K: The Second Post-test…………………………………………92

Lists of Tables

Table 1   Results of One-way ANOVA for the Pre-test………………………………..55
Table 2   Results of One-way ANOVA for the First Post-test…………………………56
Table 3   Results of One-way ANOVA for Main Effects of Treatment on the 
Second Post-test………………………………………………………………..56
Table 4   T-test Results for Main Effects of the Pre-teaching Keyword Treatment and the Keyword Inference Treatment on the Second Post-test………………57
Table 5   T-test Results for Main Effects of the Pre-teaching Keyword Treatment and the Mind map Treatment on the Second Post-test………………………...58
Table 6   T-test Results for Main Effects of the Keyword Inference Treatment and the Mind map Treatment on the Second Post-test…………………………….58
Table 7   Results of One-way ANOVA for the Pre-test………………………………..59
Table 8   Results of One-way ANOVA for the First Post-test…………………………60
Table 9   Results of One-way ANOVA for the Second Post-test………………………60
Table 10  T-test Results for Main Effects of the Pre-teaching Keyword Treatment and the Keyword Inference Treatment on the Second Post-test………………61
Table 11   T-test Results for Main Effects of the Pre-teaching Keyword Treatment and the Mind map Treatment on the Second Post-test……………………61
Table 12   T-test Results for Main Effects of the Keyword Inference Treatment and the Mind map Treatment on the Second Post-test………………………...62

Lists of Figures

Figure 1  The “About Me” mind map………………………………………………....21

Figure 2  The branch of the “An Unpleasant Experience at a Restaurant”
mind map……………………………………………………………………..27

Figure 3  The “An Unpleasant Experience at a Restaurant” mind map……………28

Figure 4  The “Dorm Rules” mind map………………………………………………45

Figure 5  The “An Unpleasant Experience at a Restaurant” mind map……………46

Figure 6  The branch of the “love” mind map constructed by a subject……………52

References
Anderson, A., and Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: 
Grune and Stratton. 

Brown, G. (1995). Dimensions of difficulty in listening comprehension. In 
Mendelsohn, D.J., and Rubin, J. (Ed.). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. San Diego: Dominie Press.  

Buck, G. (1995). How to become a good listening teacher. In Mendelsohn, D.J., 
and Rubin, J. (Ed.). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. San Diego: Dominie Press.

Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Budd, J. W. (2004).  Mind maps as classroom exercises.  Journal of economic 
education.Winter. P. 35-46.

Buzan, B., and Buzan, T. (1993). The mind map book. London: BBC Worldwide 
Limited.

Buzan, T. (2002). How to mind map. London: Thorsons. 

Campbell, B., Campbell, L., and Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning 
through multiple intelligences. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon

Celce-Murcia, M., and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL
teacher’s course, Second Edition.  Rowley, MA: Heinle &Heinle. 

Chaudron, C., and Richards, J.C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the
comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics. 7, p.113-127.  

Chaudron, C. (1995). Academic listening. In Mendelsohn, D.J., and Rubin, J. (Ed.). A 
guide for the teaching of second language listening. San Diego: Dominie Press.

Chen, H. C., and Hsu, M. C. (2004). The implementation of multiple intelligences
(MI) theory in the ESL/EFL classroom. Selected Papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publisher.

DiCecco, V. M., and Gleason, M.M. (2002).  Using graphic organizers to attain 
relational knowledge from expository text.  Journal of Learning Disabilities. 
35(4): 306-307.

Doyon, J., Owen, A., Petrides, M., Szliklas, Z. V., and Evans, A. (1996). Functional 
anatomy of visuomotor skill learning in human subjects examined with position emission tomography. European Journal of Neuroscience. 8(4): 637-648. 

Doughty, C., Pica, T., and Young, R. (1987). The impact of interaction on 
comprehension. TESOL Quarterly. 21:737-758. 

Farrand, P., Hussain, F., and Hennesay, E. (2002).  The efficacy of the ‘mind map’ 
study technique. Medical Education. 36: 426-431.

Field, J. (2002). The changing face of listening. Methodology in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Flowerdew, J., and Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: theory and practice. 
New York: Cambridge University Press.
 
Herron, C. (1994).  An investigation of the effectiveness of using an advance organizer to  ntroduce vedio in the foreign language classroom.  Modern Language Journal. 78:   
190-191.  

Huang, Y. H. (2004). The effects of integrating computer and mind mapping composition program on writing achievement for forth grade students. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Tainan University.
 
Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind: Second Edition. Alexandria: the 
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  

Johnson, W.K. (2001). Raising dormant insights: An action research cycle. The 
ETA-ROC Newsletter. 5(1): 6-9. 

Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners’ reading comprehension. TESOL 
Quarterly. 38 (2): p.225-243. 

Mendelsohn, D. (1995). Applying learning strategies in the second/ foreign language 
listening comprehension lesson. In Mendelsohn, D.J., and Rubin, J. (Ed.). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. San Diego: Dominie Press.

Mueller, G. (1980). Visual contextual cues and listening comprehension: An 
experiment. Modern Language Journal. 64: 335-340.

Nunan, D. (2002a). Listening in language learning. Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2002b). Listening in a Second Language. Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publisher.

Omaggio, A. H. (2003) (3rd). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.   

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know.
Boston :Heinle & Heinle.

Richards, J.C. (2003). Tactics for Listening. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rost, M. (1986). Strategies in listening : tasks for listening development. San 
Francisco: Lateral Communications.

Taglieber, L. K., Johnson, L.L. and Yarbrouch, D.B. (1988). Effects of prereading 
activities on EFL reading by Brazilian college students. TESOL Quarterly. 22: 455-472.   

Tang, G. (1992). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL 
reading Comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 14: 177-195.  

Teichert, H.U. (1996).  A comparative study of using illustrations, brainstorming, 
and questions as advance organizers intermediate college German conversation class.  Modern Language Journal. 80. p.509-510.

Teng, H. C. (1994). The effect of visual cues on the EFL listening comprehension by 
technology students in Taiwan.  Paper presented at the 9th T.V.E. Conference of R.O.C.  p. 247-258.


Tsai, C. H. (2002). The effects of two pre-listening tasks on L2 listening proficiency.  
Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publisher.

Tseng, S.H. (2003). On visual cues for listening comprehension: A case study 
of freshman management majors at Tamkang University. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Tamkang University. 

Tu, Y. F. (2005). The study of influence on junior high school students’ linguistic 
creativity and writing performance based on the teaching method of mindmapping in writing. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tsuzi University.

Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. New York: Longman.

Ur, P. (1984). Teaching Listening Comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wei, C. W. (2004).  The Effects of Mind Mapping and Summary Instruction on 
Reading Comprehension and Summarizing Ability of Fifth Graders in Elementary School.  Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.  

Wagner, A. (2003). Cognitive control and episodic memory. In Schacter, D., and 
Squire, L. (Eds.). Neuropsychology of memory. New York: Guilford Press.
 
Whalen, P. (2003). The amygdale: Why do you have one and why care? Presentation 
at Learning Brain Expo, Chicago. 

Wycoff, J. (1991). Mindmapping: Your personal guide to exploring creativity and 
problem solving. New York: Berkley Books.