現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
論文中文名稱:融入溝通式語言教學法(CLT):
對於高中生英語表達能力之影響 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching:
Its influence on EFL high school students’ English oral proficiency [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:人文與社會科學學院
系所名稱:應用英文系碩士班
畢業學年度:102
出版年度:103
中文姓名:宋明佳
英文姓名:Ming Ja Sung
研究生學號:100548010
學位類別:碩士
語文別:英文
口試日期:2014-06-06
論文頁數:169
指導教授中文名:洪媽益
指導教授英文名:Michael Tanangkingsing
口試委員中文名:黃希敏;趙玉芝
口試委員英文名:Caroline Hwang;Janet Yu-gi Chao
中文關鍵詞:溝通式語言教學法(CLT)溝通式教學英語為第二種語言(EFL)第二語言評量口試測驗英語為第二種語言口語表達全民英檢(GEPT)
英文關鍵詞:Communicative Language TeachingCommunicative
論文中文摘要:「溝通式語言教學法(CLT)」一直在英語教學領域裡被視為一種多元的教學模式,其目的在於透過「溝通式語言」發展學習者的語言理解力。此學習方式最早發跡於母語學習,其影響力逐漸延伸到了第二語言學習環境中。諸多領域如教育心理學和語言學,皆有與CLT相關之理論。因此,越來越多溝通式教學法運用在,英語為第二種語言(EFL)的相關研究。本研究目的是如何藉由「溝通式語言教學法」加強高中學生英語口說能力。本研究採用質化實驗法,以四位一對一的訪談,從受訪者的角度來了解CLT的效用。同時我們也了解此教學法以理解語意為學習原則的表達方式,課堂活動特別強調內化語言的互動模式,語境涵義的設計,以及使用母語人士編寫的教材。為能達到信效度,量化資料收集方式將結合學生前後測自我評量的問卷,和以在台灣運用最普遍的全民英檢(GEPT)為前後測口試評分標準。此研究設計將會以30名學生為研究對象,進行GEPT一對一前後口說測試,透過兩位評委及五項評分標準來評量及分析。期盼所得研究結果,可以解釋如何在融入溝通式語言教學法後,增進高中生英語溝通表達能力。在溝通式語言教學法裡:語義往往勝過句構,更期待這次研究的參與者能了解,在有涵意的對話中,和使用每日實境語言對學習英文的重要性。希望此研究發現不只為台灣的外語老師提供實際教學參考,更能實現終極目標:提升學生欣賞第二語言的動機。
論文英文摘要:Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been regarded as a dynamic approach in language teaching, which is based on a goal to develop learners’ “communicative competence.” Initiated in the first language development, its influence has gradually reached the second language environments. Associated with the principles of CLT are theories from educational psychology and linguistics. An increasing number of studies have examined the use of CLT in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom settings. This research aims to investigate how high school students’ oral proficiency can be enhanced by a CLT- incorporated English class and, along with four one-on-one qualitative interviews, to explore the insightful perspectives of CLT effectiveness from the subject’s point of view. While we acknowledge meaning-bearing input and output, the class activities emphasize the integration or interactive models, meaning-bearing activities, and authentic learning materials. In order to achieve reliability and validity, the data collection in this research will combine pre- and post- questionnaire surveys in the form of learners’ self-evaluation and adopt the oral proficiency criteria of GEPT (General English Proficiency Test), one of the most common evaluations for speaking in Taiwan. In this research, a total of 30 pre- and post- one-on-one oral interview evaluations will be examined and analyzed through five oral proficiency criteria by two raters. The results will hopefully provide an explanation of how students’ oral proficiency could be improved by integrating CLT into an EFL environment. Meaning often outweighs form in CLT; the participants in the study are expected to understand the significance of meaning-based dialogs and recognize pragmatic usages of English. Hopefully, the findings will not only help to demonstrate a practical CLT implementation for language teachers in Taiwan, but also to inspire an ultimate goal to raise learners’ motivations in second language learning.
論文目次:Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract ………i
English Abstract........................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements……............................................................................................iv
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………..............v

1. Introduction
1.1 Research Motivation ........………………...………………..………....…….…...1
1.2 The problems of Learning English in Taiwan…….………....…………….…….2
1.3 Motivation …….………...………………………………….………….………..3
1.4 Purpose of the Study/ Research Questions…….………...….…………………...4
1.5 Significance of the Study…….………...…………………….………….……….5

2. Literature Review
2.1 Communicative Language Teaching ……….…………………………………...7
2.1.1 A Brief Introduction ………….…………….……………………….…..8
2.1.2 Significance of Oral Language in CLT…………………………….......11
2.1.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Communicative Language Teaching.15
2.2 The implementation of CLT in an EFL Environment……………………........17
2.2.1 Creating a Communicative Comprehension Dialog.…………………..20
2.2.1.1 Interaction ………………………………………………….......21
2.2.1.1.1 Learners’ age, English Proficiency Levels, and Goals
2.2.1.1.2 Adaptations into Current Program in the Public School
2.2.1.1.3 Selected Topic for the Speaking Class
2.2.1.1.4 The Two “Languages”: (a) in the task; (b) for the task
2.2.1.1.5 Speaking Activity that Works as Vehicle for Conversation 2.2.1.2 Context ……………………………………………………........25
2.2.1.3 Authentic Language...………………………………………......30
2.2.1.4 Films as L2 Speaking Material ………………………….......... 32
2.2.1.5 Meaningful Activities …………………………………...…..... 34
2.2.2 Focusing on Communicative Competence Information-Exchange Tasks……...……………………………………………….…………... 35
2.2.3 Form a Sharing Relationship between Teachers and Learners………...40
2.3 Oral Proficiency Evaluation...………………………………………………...41
2.3.1 The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Oral Proficiency
Assessments……………………………………………..…………...41
2.3.2 GEPT Oral Proficiency Guidelines .…..……………………………....43
2.3.3 Holistic Oral Language Scoring Rubric …...…………..….……….….45
2.3.4 Students’ Self-Observation……..………………………….………….48
2.4 Summary…………………………………………………………….………..49

3. Methodology………………………………………………………...…….….. 51
3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………….….. 52
3.2 Research Design……………………………………………………….……...53
3.2.1 Treatment for the Experimental Group…..…………………………....54
3.2.2 Treatment for the Control Group…..………………………………….55
3.3 Instruments……………...…………………………………………………….55
3.4 Materials……………………………………………………………………....57
3.5 CLT Class Implementation ……………………………………………….......58
3.6 Data Analysis…………………………...……………………………………..66
3.6.1 Quantitative Analysis…………..………………………………….......67
3.6.2 Qualitative Analysis…………………………………………………....70

4. Results & Analyses.......……………………………………………….…….……....73
4.1 Minimizing Error Variance…..………………………….…………………….74
4.2 Data Collection Flow Charts: Results of the Factor Analysis ………………..76
4.3 Statistical Analyses of the Survey and Interview Results…………………......79
4.3.1 Hypothesis 1……………………………....……...………..………......80
4.3.2 The Post-test Surveys……...………...…………………………….......83
4.3.3 Comparing the Pre- and Post- Surveys.....………....….……………….86
4.3.3.1Test of Hypothesis 3…………………………..….…..………....87
4.3.3.2Test of Hypothesis 4…………………………..….…..…………87
4.3.4 Analyzing the One-on-One Oral Interviews……..…..………………...90
4.3.4.1 Hypothesis 1-1………………………………………………….91
4.3.4.2 Hypothesis 2-1……………………………………………….....93
4.3.4.3 Hypothesis 3-1……………………………………………….....96
4.3.4.4 Hypothesis 4-1……………………………………………….…99
4.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………..…102

5. Qualitative Analyses…………………...……………………………….……........104
5.1 Qualitative Method…..…………………………………………………........107
5.2 Analyses..……….…………………………………………………………....108
5.2.1 Interview Question (a)..………………………………………………109
5.2.2 Interview Question (b)……………..…………………………………111
5.2.3 Interview Question (c)……………..…………………………………114
5.2.4 Interview Question (d)……………..…………………………………117
5.2.5 Interview Question (e)……………..…………………………………120
5.2.6 Interview Question (f)…………….……………………………….....123
5.2.7 Interview Questions (g) & (h)……..……………………..…………..125
5.2.8 Discussion…………………..………………………………………..129
5.3 Summary…………………………………………………………………….136

6. Analysis Conclusion…………………………………………………………….....137
6.1 Summary of Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses……...………………….137
6.2 Limitations & Recommendations .…………………………………………..139
6.3 Significance and Future Research .………………………………………….142

References ……………………………………………………………………………146

Appendixes
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Questionnaire………………………..…150英語教學研究問卷…………………………………………………………………...152
Pre-Oral Test Questions……………………………………………………………….154
Post-Oral Test Questions……………………………………………………………...155
Qualitative Interview Transcript ……………………………………………………...156
論文參考文獻:References
Barrow, R. (1988). Some observations on the concept of imagination. In K.Egan & D.
Nadaner, Imagination and Education (pp. xiv, 79-90). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Berger J. (1972). Ways of Seeing. Rye Field Publications. 觀看的方式Chinese
Translation (2005). Bardon-Chinese Agency: Taipei.
Berry-Bravo, J. (1993). Teaching the Art of Circumlocution. Hispania 76.2, 371-77.
Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum Press.
Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative Language Teaching in ACTION: Putting principles to work. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy 2nd Ed., New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rded.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Boyd, M. & Maloof, V. M. (2000). How teachers can build on student-proposed intertextual links to facilitate student talk in the ESL classroom. In Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction, ed. J.K. Hall and L.S. Verplaetse, 163-82. London: Erlbaum.
Cai, Wenjie (2009). Using Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to Improve
Speaking Ability of Chinese Non-English Major Students (Seminar Paper). University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Wisconsin.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmit (Eds.), Language and Communication
(pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Clark, H., & Clark, E. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to
psycholinguistic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovish.
Cohen, R. (2009). Explorations in Second Language Reading. Maryland, USA:
Capitol Communication System, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Defense Language Institution English Language Center, OPI level descriptions. Retrieved March 10, 2014 from http://www.dlielc.edu/Testing/opi_level.html
Egbert, J. and Ernest-Slavit, G. (2010). Access to Academics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Allyn & Bacon.
Finocchiaro, M., &Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach: From theory to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The Art of Teaching Speaking: Research and Pedagogy for the ESL/EFL Classroom. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
General English Proficiency Test. Retrieved September 14, 2013. from
http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT.html
Goodman, K. (1986). What’s Whole in Whole Language?. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Harlin, R., Lipa, S, E., and Lonberger, R. (1991). The Whole Language Journey.
Ontario: Pippin Publishing Limited.
Hatch, E.M. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and creolzation as language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes
(eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269-293.
Kassa, A.(2012). An Assessment of Communicative Language Teaching in EFL
Classrooms. USA: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG.
Krashen, S.D. (2003). Dealing with English fever. ETA.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach. New York: Pergamon.
Kurniasih, E. (2011). Teaching the Four Language Skills in Primary EFL Classroom:
Some Considerations. Journal of English Teaching. Jakarta, Indonesia. 71-81.
Lai, Y. P. (2009). The effects of grammar translation method and communicative
language teaching grammar instruction in EFL university students in Taiwan (Dissertation). Alliant International University at San Diego.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J.F. & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Teaching
Happen (2nd ed, International Edition).TW: The McGraw-Hill.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge   
  University Press.
Low passing rate of primary GEPT test: writing and speaking are key points,
electronic news. (2007, May) Epoch Times. 大紀元5月21日報導:(中央社記者劉嘉韻台北二十一日電)語測中心:英檢初級通過率低/寫作口說是關鍵. Retrieved February 12, 2014. From http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/7/5/21/n1717465.html
Lyster, R. &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19, 37-66
Myford, C.M., & Wolfe, E.W. (2003) Detecting and Measuring Rater Effects using
Many-Facet Rasch Measurement: Part I. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(4),
386-421 and in E. V. Smith, Jr., & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch
Measurement (p. 460-517). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Nishino, T. (2009). Communicative language teaching in Japanese high schools:
teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. USA: the Temple University.
Nunan, D. & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research: A comprehensive guide. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Malley, J. M. & Pierce, L.V. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language
Learners: Practical Approaches for Teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. II. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. New York : Heinle &
Heinle
Richards, J.C. and Rogers T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, K. and C.R. Keinssasser, (1999). Communicative Language Teaching (CLT):
Practical understanding. The modern language journal, 83, 494-517.
Savignon, S. J. (1972).Communicative Competence: An experiment in foreign
language teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.
Savignon, S. J. (1998). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon S.J. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teaching Education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scarcella, R. C. & Oxford, R. L. (1992).The Tapestry of Language Learning: the
individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Sherman, J. (2003). Using Authentic Video in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shohamy, E. (1990). Language Testing Priorities: A Different Perspective. Foreign
Language Annals, 23(5), pp. 385-94.
Survey: Taiwan's English proficiency in low and middle level, electronic news. (2013,
November). The Central News Agency of Taiwan. 中央社: 調查:台灣英語能力中低水平. Retrieved February 12, 2014. From http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-135084
Taiwan behind in English proficiency, paper reports. (2007, August). Taipei Times. Retrieved June 28, 2013. from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/08/22/2003375273
Tang, A., Owen, C., Biocca, F., Mou, W. (2003) New techniques for presenting
instructions and transcripts: Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Taylor, B. P. (1983). Teaching ESL: Incorporating a communicative, student-centered component. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 69-88.
Tavakol M. and Dennick, R. (2011). Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International
Journal of Medical Education. 2011; 2:53-55.
Thanasoulas, D. (2001).The Importance of Teaching Culture in the Foreign Language
Classroom. Retrieved March 24, 2014. from
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/ content/ issue3_3 / 7-thanasoulas.html
Wang, Pei-Ling (1999). English grammar instruction in Taiwan: Student and teacher
attitudes. Doctoral Dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University.
Wilkins, D.A. (1972). The linguistics and situational content of the common core in a unit/credit system. MS. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Yalden, J. (1983). The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and Implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2019-08-12起公開