政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/136814
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113392/144379 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51192691      線上人數 : 890
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136814


    題名: 歸納及演繹法對台灣高職一年級英語學習者的學習成效:以翻譯學習上中英詞序不同的面相作為探討
    The Effects of Inductive and Deductive Learning Among First-year Vocational High School Learners of English in Taiwan: A Study on the Word Order Differences Between Chinese and English from the Aspect of Translation
    作者: 詹迎婕
    Chan, Ying-Chieh
    貢獻者: 張郇慧
    Chang, Hsun-Huei
    詹迎婕
    Chan, Ying-Chieh
    關鍵詞: 歸納
    演繹
    教學法
    中英詞序
    Inductive
    Deductive
    Chinese-English word order
    Instructional approach
    日期: 2021
    上傳時間: 2021-09-02 15:28:34 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 在台灣現行的108課綱中，最新改版的英文課本在句型文法的單元中融入了「歸納式」的學習方法，本研究的目標是要實證傳統「演繹式」及新編入的「歸納式」兩種學習法對於學生在英文文法概念的學習成效，進而檢視新版教科書的改變對於英語學習者是否有正面的幫助。為了避免選擇題型中比較會出現的測驗智巧(test-wiseness)的情形，本研究採用「中英翻譯」作為測驗英語學習者「中英詞序」文法概念的方式。本研究的實驗參與者是61位一年級高職學生，其中33位是接受「歸納式」的文法教學引導，而另外的28位則是接受傳統的「演繹式」文法教學。為了要觀察兩組不同教學法的受試者在翻譯表現上的差異，結果的分析是採用獨立樣本及成對樣本的t檢定。整體而言，研究的結果顯示在牽涉到中英詞序不同的句型翻譯表現上，傳統「演繹式」及新編入的「歸納式」兩種學習法的效果並沒有顯著差異。此外，本研究也將進而探討「學習者的語言能力」以及「中英詞序不同的樣態」對於兩種教學法成效的影響。
    Under the newly-implemented curriculum, the instruction of grammar knowledge has involved inductive approach as a new teaching and learning method in the latest versions of English textbooks. This research aims to attest the effects of both deductive and inductive
    instructions regarding the learning of grammar knowledge to figure out whether the change in the teaching reality has positive effect on EFL learners. To avoid test-wiseness in multiple tests, translation was adopted as the tests on learners’ grammar knowledge of Chinese-English word order differences. There were 61 first-year vocational high school participants involved with 33 receiving inductive instruction and 28 receiving deductive instruction. To observe the variance in translation performance among participants in the two groups, independent-sample and paired-sample test were applied for the analysis. On the whole, the results indicated that there was no significant difference of translation performance under the two
    instructions. Participants’language proficiency and the types of Chinese-English word order differences were the two factors also discussed in details in this study to examine their interaction with the effect of the two instructional approaches.
    參考文獻: References
    Abdul-Ghafa, K. M. (2019). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and Achievement among EFL University Students in Yemen. Online Submission,3(3), 64-83.
    Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Adults versus children in second-language learning: Psychological considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 48(7), 420-424.
    Benitez-Correa, C., Gonzalez-Torres, P., and Vargas-Saritama, A. (2019). A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to High School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 225-236.
    Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
    Carroll, John B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Chang, C. N., and Tsay, W. T. (2007). The common grammatical errors Taiwanese students often make in English research. The Journal of Educational Science, 7(1), 1-14.
    Chen, M. C., and Shih, J. Y. (2008). Interaction Effects of Proficiency, Gender, and Task Complexity to Inductive and Deductive Approaches in Grammar Instruction. Journal of Applied Foreign Language, 10, 89-113
    Darus, S., and Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of Form One Chinese students: A case study. European Journal of Social Science, 10(2), October 2009, 242-253
    Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Dagilienė, I. (2012). Translation as a learning method in English language teaching. Studies About Languages, (21). doi:10.25156/ptj.2017.7.3.15
    Dipolog-Ubanan, G. (2016). L1 influence on writing in L2 among UCSI Chinese students: A case study. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(4), 1835-1847
    Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal,87(2), 242-260.
    Fischer, R. A. (1979). The inductive-deductive controversy revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 63(3), 98-105.
    Herron, C., and Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
    Kelly, T. L. (1939). The Selection of Upper and Lower Groups for the Validation of Test Items, Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 17-24
    Lahuerta, A. C. (2018). Study of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/258971
    Lally, C. G. (1998b). The implicit versus explicit division in language learning theory, method, and practice. Unterrichtspraxis, 31, 154-159.
    Li, L. I. (1998). A comparison of word order in English and Chinese. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics, 34, 153-161.
    Liu, H. M. (1979). A Comparative Study of the Word Order of English and Chinese with Special Reference to the Mirror-Image Phenomenon. Thesis. Fu-jen Catholic University.
    Mallia, J. G. (2014). Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching English Grammar. Arab World English Journal, 5(2).
    Mohammed, A. A., and Jaber, H. A. (2008). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Approaches of Teaching on Jordanian University Students’ Use of the Active and Passive Voice in English. College Student Journal, 42(2), 545-553.
    Motha, H. (2013). The effect of deductive and inductive learning strategies on language acquisition. Unpublished master`s thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
    Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
    Negahdaripour, S., and Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Spoken Accuracy and Fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.8
    Pourmoradi, V., and Vahdat, S. (2016). The interactive relationship between inductive-deductive grammar teaching, gender and the cognitive style of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2151-2163.
    Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
    Sulaiman, S. (2012).The effectiveness of inductive and deductive approach in teaching adverbs of frequency among low achievers (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
    Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
    Timina, S. (2013). The problem of Chinese language interference in written English. The European Conference on Language Learning Official Conference Proceedings 2013. Retrieved October, 30 2015 from www.iafor.org.
    Wang, L. Y. (2002). Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approach on EFL Learning Collocation Patterns by Using Concordancers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Taiwan: Yunlin.
    Winitz, H. (1996). Grammaticality judgment as a function of explicit and implicit instruction in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 32-46.
    Wu, H., and Garzar, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context-A study of error analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6), 1256- 1262. doi:https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.6.1256-1262
    Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., and Kim, H. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
    Zamani, A., and Mohammadi, F. A. (2014). A Comparison between Using an Inductive Strategy and a Deductive one in Grammar Instruction for Iranian EFL Learners. Enjoy Teaching Journal, 2(1), 90- 98
    Zheng, C., and Park, Tae-Ja. (2013). An analysis of errors in English writing made by Chinese and Korean university students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 1342-1360. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.8.1342-1351
    翁祥景(2002)。 “鏡相詞序”的講授對台灣國中學生中文英譯的影響。
    國立政治大學英語教學碩士專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    語言學研究所
    103555002
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103555002
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101173
    顯示於類別:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    500201.pdf2242KbAdobe PDF268檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋