簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
王今宏 Wang, Chin Hung |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
差異化教學對高中生英文聽力學習之成效研究 The Efficacy of Implementing Differentiated Instruction on EFL High School Students’ English Listening Comprehension Ability |
| 指導教授： |
余明忠
Yu, Ming Chung |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
外國語文學院 - 英語教學碩士在職專班 The Master of Arts in English Teaching |
| 論文出版年： | 2016 |
| 畢業學年度： | 104 |
| 語文別： | 中文 |
| 論文頁數： | 146 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 差異化教學 、聽力理解 、聽力過程 、聽力困難 、聽力教學 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | differentiated instruction, listening comprehension, listening process, listening difficulty, listening instruction |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：204 下載：26 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
我們都很清楚知道，在21世紀的班級，許多的老師都是面對一群差異甚大並有不同能力的學習者，為了解決這個棘手的問題，差異化教學出現了，而且其成效不論在ESL或是EFL也都很成功。此外，許多研究也應用差異化教學去提升特定科目的學習，包含數學、音樂、美術以及閱讀。然而，沒有研究證實差異化教學對英文聽力學習成效。
74位研究實驗對象皆就讀於北台灣一所公立高中，他們都有相似的背景和教育程度。他們都是理組(二類)學生，每週有同樣時數的英文課。雖然可以假設他們同質性很高，但是為了確保實驗結果，T檢定也證實兩班以及各班三組(高分群、中分群、低分群)沒有顯著差異。全民英檢中級試題用來當作學生的前後測驗，經過11週的實驗後，用統計T檢定來分析資料結果。結果如下:
1. 差異化教學提升高中生英語聽力能力。
2. 差異化教學能提升學習成效並減低學習者彼此成就差距。
3. 差異化教學能提升中低學習成就的學生。
4. 聽力困難呼應了Brown提出的連音簡化、語言變化、話語多餘以及說話速度。
5. 大部分學生對差異化教學表示正向的態度。
6. 其他聽力問題包含了缺乏字彙、速度、口音以及話語多餘。
基於上述發現，相關的解釋與建議都提供給對差異化教學有興趣的老師和研究人員參考。
As we know, teachers, in the 21st century, are being asked to work with ever more broadly diverse groups of learners, and many of them are faced with a mixed-ability or heterogeneous classroom. To deal with this problem, differentiated instruction (DI) was created and it has proven to be successful in both EFL and ESL context. Besides, several studies have shown how it could be used to improve students’ learning in specific subjects such as math, music and English. However, few studies can be found about the effects of exploiting differentiated instruction on improving students’ listening comprehension ability and strengthening their motivation in empirical studies.
The 74 participants in this study were two groups of 11th graders from a public high school in northern Taiwan. Both had similar background and education. They were all students in science study classes with the same English courses every week. Although the two classes could be presumptively homogeneous, a t-test was used to ensure the homogeneity of these two classes and the subgroups in both two classes. General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) served as pretest and posttest. After 11-week treatment, a t-test was used to analyze the data. The results are summarized as follows:
1. DI improved high school student’s listening comprehension ability.
2. DI improved learners’ achievement and minimized the achievement gap among learners in EFL context.
3. DI worked effectively for both low and intermediate proficiency learners.
4. The difficulties corresponded to what Brown (p. 45) proposed, such as “reduced forms,” “performance variables,” “redundancy” and “rate of delivery.”
5. Most of the participants showed positive attitude toward DI.
6. The problems they encountered while listening to the videos were lack of vocabulary, the delivery speed, accent, and redundancy
Based on findings mentioned above, explanations and suggestions are provided for high school English teachers and researchers who are interested in differentiated instruction.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background & Motivation 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction 5
2.1 The Importance of Listening 5
2.2 Studies Related to Teaching Listening for High School Students 7
2.3 The Models of Listening Process 10
2.4 Differentiated Instruction 11
2.5 Empirical Evidence of Differentiated Instruction 13
2.6 Studies of Differentiated Instruction in Taiwan 15
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 19
3.1 Participants 19
3.2 Instruments 20
3.2.1 General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), Basic Level and Intermediate Level 20
3.2.2 Teaching Materials 26
3.2.3 Questionnaire Survey 28
3.2.4 Focus Group Interviews 32
3.3 Procedure 34
3.4 Data Analysis 38
Chapter 4 RESULTS 41
4.1 The efficacy of DI on high school student’s listening comprehension ability 41
4.2 The efficiency of “differentiated instruction” and “traditional instruction” for high, intermediate and low proficiency learners respectively 42
4.3 Learners’ Thoughts and Feedback of Differentiated Instruction 44
4.3.1 Data from the questionnaire after the Differentiated Instruction 44
4.4 Data from the Focus Group Interview after the Differentiated Instruction 48
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 53
5.1 The efficacy of DI on high school student’s listening comprehension ability 51
5.2 The efficiency of “differentiated instruction” and “traditional instruction” for high, intermediate and low proficiency learners respectively 52
5.3 Learners’ Thoughts and Feedback of Differentiated Instruction 54
5.3.1 Data from the questionnaire after the Differentiated Instruction 54
5.3.2 Data from the Focus Group Interview after the Differentiated Instruction 56
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 61
6.1 Summary of the Findings 61
6.2 Pedagogical Implications 65
6.3 Limitations of this Study 66
6.4 Suggestions for Future Study 68
REFERENCES 69
Appendix A 73
Appendix B 74
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Score Scale of GEPT 23
Table 3.2 Distribution of the Participants in Three Proficiency Levels 23
Table 3.3 PR Distribution of the Participants in Three Proficiency Levels 24
Table 3.4 T-Test of the pretests of HPL between the experimental group and control group 25
Table 3.5 T-Test of the pretests of IPL between the experimental group and control group 25
Table 3. 6 T-Test of the pretests of LPL between the experimental group and control group 25
Table 3.7 Topics selected from the book World English 26
Table 3.8 Structure of 3 tiered tasks 28
Table 3.9 Micro- and macroskills of listening comprehension (adapted from Richards, 1983) 29
Table 3.10 Questionnaire Survey 30
Table 3.11 Questions for Focus Group Interview 33
Table 3.12 Instructional Design for the Experimental Group 35
Table 3.13 Instructional Design for the Control Group 35
Table 3.14 The Process of Instructional Design 37
Table 4.1 T-test of the post-tests between the experimental group and the control group 42
Table 4.2 T-test of the HPL Posttests between the Experimental Group and the Control Group 43
Table 4.3 T-test of the IPL Post-tests between the Experimental Group and the Control Group 43
Table 4.4 T-test of the LPL Post-tests between the Experimental Group and the Control Group 43
Table 4.5 Questionnaire Survey of the Experimental Group 46
Table 4.6 Percentages of the Interviewees Who Liked the Process of DI 49
Table 4.7 Percentages of the Interviewees Who thought DI Was Helpful 50
Table 4.8 The Problems of the Interviewees 50
List of Figures
Figure 1 Overall Procedure of the Study 39
Figure 2 Pie Chart of the Result of Questionnaire Survey of the Experimental Group 44
Annemie D. & Pieter S. (2013). Mathematics Instruction: Do Classrooms Matter? Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 11(2), 17-26, 2013
Adams, C. M., & Pierce, R. L. (2006). Differentiating Instruction: A Practical Guide to Tiered Lessons in the Elementary Grades: Prufrock Press.
Alavinia, P. & Sadeghi, T. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Task-Based Instruction via Heeding Learning Styles on EFL Learners’ Feasible Proficiency Gains. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 19(1).
Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M. B. & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing Reading Achievement of Primary and Middle School Students through Differentiated Instruction.
Benjamin, A. (2014). Differentiated Instruction Using Technology: A Guide for Middle & HS Teachers: Taylor & Francis.
Chen, C. L. (2014) Exploring the Reduction of Listening Anxiety and Promotion of Listening Comprehension Ability under the Teaching Mode of Cooperative Learning.
Catherine A. L., D. Betsy M., and Sally M. R. (2014). Effects of Differentiated Instruction on Student Achievement in Middle School, Journal of Advanced Academics 2014, Vol. 25(4) 384–402
Carol A. T. (2015). Teaching for Excellence in Academically Diverse Classrooms, SYMPOSIUM: 21ST CENTURY EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, PART 2, Soc (2015) 52:203–209, DOI 10.1007/s12115-015-9888-0
Chapman, C., & King, R. (2007). Differentiated Instructional Management: Work Smarter, Not Harder: Corwin.
Cheng, A.-C. (2006). Effects of Differentiated Curriculum and Instruction on Taiwanese EFL Students’ Motivation, Anxiety and Interest. (Ed. D. 3238301), University of Southern California.
Drapeau, P. (2004). Differentiated Instruction: Making It Work: A Practical Guide to Planning, Managing, and Implementing Differentiated Instruction to Meet the Needs of All Learners: Scholastic / Teaching Resources.
Dahlman, A., Hoffman, P., & Brauhn, S. (2008). Classroom strategies and tools for differentiated instruction in the ESL classroom. MinneWITESOL Journal, 25, 58-77
Echo H. Wu (2013). The Path Leading to Differentiation: An Interview With Carol Tomlinson, Journal of Advanced Academics 24(2) 125–133
Gusman, J. (2004). Differentiated Instruction and the English Language Learner: Best Practices to Use With Your Students (K-12): National Professional Resources.
HANI M. (2014) Maximizing Student Success with Differentiated Learning, The Clearing House, 87: 34–38, 2014 Copyright C_ Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, ISSN: 0009-8655 print; 1939-912x online, DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2013.832130
H. Douglas Brown (2007) Teaching by Principles, An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Third Edition Copyright © 2007 Education, Inc.
Huang, Y. L. (2005) How to Improve Low-Achievers’ Listening Ability—Using PE Students as An Example.
HOLLI M. L. (2008) Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction: Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards
Han Shuying (2014). Research on new English teaching mode based on informatization, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 6(6):635-642
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach and Teach All Learners (Updated Anniversary Edition): Free Spirit Publishing.
Hartnell, B. J. (2011). Standards-based Curriculum, Differentiated Instruction, and End of Course Aassessments. (Ed. D. 3443953), Walden University Education.
Jay M; & John L (2005). Differentiated Instruction and Educational Standards: Is Détente Possible? , Brown Theory into Practice; 44, 3; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 234.
King, S. (2010). Factors associated with inclusive classroom teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction for diverse learners.
Kelly M. Anderson (2007). Differentiating Instruction to Include All Students, Bob Algozzine, Column Editor University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Lee, T.-k. (2007). Using case study to investigate Taiwanese ESL teacher’ beliefs about differentiated instruction. (Ph. D. 3285316), University of Virginia.
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction: Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81 (4), 161-164. Doi: 10.3200/TCHS.81.4.161-164
McCulllough, S. M. (2012). The Effects of Differentiated Instruction on Academic Achievement of Struggling Second Grade Readers. (Ed. D. 3489743), Walden University Education.
Marcia, L. R., Madeleine G., Edwin E., & Robert A. Gable (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction.
Marta S., Dr. Habibullah P., & Niaz S. (2013). A STUDY OF TEACHING LISTENING TO INTERMEDIATE LEARNERS, International Journal of Academic Research Part B; 2013; 5(6), 207-212. DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-6/B.33
Paul S.G. (2005). - A Rationale for Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom - Theory Into Practice, v44 n3 p185-193 2005
Panagiota K., Eleni T., Maria M., & Mary K. (2013). Differentiation of teaching and learning mathematics: an action research study in tertiary education
Parker, C. C. (2011). An Investigation of Differentiated Instruction: Closing the Achievement Gap for Elementary English Language Learners: ERIC
Stuart, S., & Rinaldi, C. (2009). A Collaborative Planning Framework for Teachers implementing Tiered Instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(2), 52-57
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and
understanding by design, Alexandria, VA: ASCD (200 pp., $25.95 pb, ISBN:
13-978-1-4166-0284-2).
Tomlinson, C., &Edison, C. (2003). Differentiation in Practice: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum, Grades 5-9: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for Differentiating Schools and Classrooms: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Tomlinson, C., (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-ability Classrooms: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tsou, Y. S. (2015) Implementing Differentiated Language Instruction: Action Research on a Senior High EFL Classroom in Taiwan.
