成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	李健生 Li, Jen-Sheng
論文名稱：	同儕互動及師生互動對低成就生英語口語溝通能力的效益 THE EFFECTS OF PEER INTERACTION AND TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION ON THE ORAL COMMUNICATION OF LOW ACHIEVERS OF ENGLISH
指導教授：	高實玫 Kao, Shin-Mei
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	文學院 - 外國語文學系碩士在職專班 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature (on the job class)
論文出版年：	2005
畢業學年度：	93
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	131
中文關鍵詞：	低成就生、同儕互動
外文關鍵詞：	Peer Interaction, Low Achievers
相關次數：	點閱：74 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

論文內容摘要

　　本研究旨在比較同儕互動及師生互動對低成就生英語口語溝通能力的效益。特別在探討同儕互動的不同分組方式 (如同質性對異質性)，並對呈現個別差異的低成就生進行對話分析。

　　本研究以高雄縣林園鄉港埔國小二十位六年級低成就生為研究對象。這二十位低成就生，是依隨機抽樣的方式，由六年級四個班的低成就生中抽出。這些低成就生參與了為期六個禮拜，一個禮拜兩堂英語課，每堂課五分鐘互動活動的實驗。他們被隨機分派到以下四組，並且兩人為一對：(1) 控制組 (沒有任何實驗設計，低成就生無互動對象)； (2) 與教師配對組 (L/T)；(3) 與低成就生配對組 (L/L)；以及 (4)與高成就生配對組 (L/H)。之後，以錄音的方式蒐集這些參與者及他們的夥伴之言談資料，並且以量化及質化的方式進行分析。本研究主要的發現摘要如下:

1.本實驗中的低成就生在參與和一位夥伴的互動活動後，英語的口語表現有顯著的進步。

2.關於口語表現的質方面 (口語測驗的分數)，在L/T及L/H組之低成就生，表現較L/L 及控制組的低就生優。

3.關於口語表現的量方面 (口語測驗中，英語詞彙的總量)，在L/H組的低成就生於口語測驗時，較L/L及控制組的低成就生有顯著進步。

4.對低成就生而言，異質性的分組方式 (L/H) 改善低成就生的口語表現方面，較同質性的分組方式 (L/L) 為顯著。

5.研究者並發現三種互動的對話模組 (L/T，L/H，及L/L)，以此解釋各組間之個別差異現象。

　　最後，本研究依分組方式及活動設計等方面，對英語教學及英語學習，提出一些具體建言。

ABSTRACT

　This study discusses the effects of peer interaction and teacher-student interaction on the oral communication of low achievers of English. Specifically, this study explores the effects of different peer dyad groupings (e.g., homogeneous versus heterogeneous) and the interactive patterns of low achievers that revealed individual difference.

　Twenty low achievers of the 6th grade were randomly chosen from Gang Pu Elementary School in Kaohsiung County. These students participated in a five-minute interactive activity in each of their English class which met twice a week for six weeks. These low achievers were randomly assigned to the following four groups and paired in dyads: (1) the control group (no treatment); (2) paring with the teacher (L/T); (3) pairing with a low achiever (L/L); and (4) pairing with a high achiever (L/H). The speech data of these participants with their partners were audio-recorded and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings are summarized as follows:

1.The low achievers in this study made significant progress in their oral performances after participating in interactive conversation with a partner.

2.Regarding the quality of the oral performances (i.e., their scores in their oral tests), the low achievers in the L/T and L/H groups performed better than those in the L/L and control groups.

3.Regarding the quantity of the oral performances (i.e., the amounts of English morphemes produced in the oral tests), the low achievers in L/H groups produced significantly more morphemes in their oral tests than the low achievers in the L/L and control groups.

4.The heterogeneous grouping (L/H) improved low achievers’ oral performances significantly in comparison to the homogeneous grouping (L/L) to the low achievers.

5.Three interactive patterns－the L/T, L/H and L/L－were found to explain the individual differences.

　Finally, the study provides some implications for improving English teaching and learning in terms of grouping and activity design.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
     
CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION                              1
Background and Motivation                                            1
Purpose of the Study                                                   5
Research Questions                                                    6
Significance of the Study                                               7
Limitation of the Study                                                 8
Definition of Terms                                                    9

CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW                        12
Classroom Interactions                                                12
Psychological Perspective                                          12
Sociolinguistic Perspective                                         15
      Age Variable                                               16
      Gender Variable                                            16
      Other Variables                                             17
Sociocultural Perspective                                           18 
Cooperative and Collaborative Studies                                21
              Peer Tutoring, Peer Collaboration and Cooperative Learning         21
The Collaborative Studies in Instruction                         24
The Roles of Teacher and Student in Cooperative Interaction        25
Variables that Influence Cooperative Interaction                  26
    Low achievers in the Classroom                                        26
Nature of Low Achievers in the Classroom                             27
Within-class Grouping                                             29
Numbers of Peers: Pairs or Groups                                   31
Conversation and Discourse in SLA Classroom                           33
Conversation and Discourse in Input                                  34
      Krashen’s Comprehensible Input                               34
      Michael H. Long’s Modified Interaction (Input)                   35
Conversation and Discourse in Interaction                              36
      Long’s Six Interactional Features                            36
      Ellis’ Research                                          38
      Vygotsky’s the Zone of Proximal Development                39
Conversation and Discourse in Output                                 39
      Krashen on the Role of Output                                 39
      Swain and Lapkin’s Output Hypothesis                          40
Conclusion                                                      41
Oral communication in classroom                                       42
Communicative Competence                                        43
Communication in the Classroom                                     44
Levels of Communication                                           46
Oral Communicative Performances of Low Achievers                    47

CHAPTER THREE  METHODLODGY                           51
Research Design                                                     51
Two Pilot Studies                                             51
Participants                                                  52
Experimental Design                                           57
The Treatment                                                60
The Pre-test, Post-test and Rating Scale                            61
Data Collection Procedure                                          66
Quantitative Analysis                                             66
      Scores of Oral Performances and English Morphemes Units          66
      Research Hypotheses                                        66
      Statistic Instruments                                         67
    Qualitative Methods                                              68
      Mandarin Utterances with Communicative and Scaffolding Functions  68
      Instruments                                                69

CHAPTER FOUR  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                  72
Quantitative Results                                                 72
Qualitative Results                                                   88
The Communicative Function Codes                                  91
The Scaffolding Functions                                          99

CHAPTER FIVE  CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS            105
Summary of the Results                                          105
Experimental Effects                                             108
Conclusion and Implications                                          109
Pedagogical Implications for Improving English Teaching and Learning     110
Suggestions for Further Research                                    111

REFERENCES                                               112

APPENDICES                                                123
Appendix A: Activity Sheet (A) and (B)                                 123
Appendix B: Pre-test (for examiner) of the Pilot Study                    125
Appendix C: Rating Scale of Oral Performances (Pilot Study)              126
Appendix D: Pre-test (for examiner)                                    127
Appendix E: Post-test of the Study                                     129


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 2.1  Dimensions of Peer Groups 22
Table 2.2  Features of Three Types of Peer Interactions 23
Table 3.1  Low Achievers’ Percentile Point of SPM and the Achievement Tests Scores 53
Table 3.2  Comparison of Achievement Scores Among the Four Groups After 55
Stratified Random Assignment
Table 3.3  ANOVA for Achievement Test Scores of Four Groups After Assignment 55
Table 3.4  Variables and Treatments of Groups 58
Table 3.5  Research Time Frame and Activities 59
Table 3.6  Rating Scale of Oral Performances 63
Table 3.7  Inter-Rater Reliability of Three Raters in the Pretest 65
Table 3.8  Inter-Rater Reliability of Three Raters in the Posttest 65
Table 3.9  The Communicative Functions Codes Used in the Interactive Groups 70
Table 3.10  Six Scaffolding Functions Used by the Low Students in the Four Groups 71
Table 4.1  The Pre-test and Post-test Scores of the Low Achievers 73
Table 4.2  ANOVA of the Pre-test Scores in Four Groups 74
Table 4.3  T-test of the Pretest－Posttest Scores in Four Groups 76
Table 4.4  ANCOVA for Groups with Pretest as Covariate 78
Table 4.5  Posteriori Comparisons of Four Groups in Scores 79
Table 4.6  Total English Morpheme Units of Low Achievers in Pretest and Posttest 82
Table 4.7  ANOVA of the English Morpheme Units in Pretest Among Four Groups 83
Table 4.8  T test for Four Groups in English Morpheme Units 84
Table 4.9  ANCOVA for Groups with Pretest in English Morpheme Units as Covariate 85
Table 4.10  Posteriori Comparisons of Groups in English Morphemes Units 86
Table 4.11  Frequencies of the Communicative Functions Codes by the Four Low Achievers and Their Partners 90
Table 4.12  Frequencies of Six Scaffolding Functions Used by the Four Low Achievers and Their Partners 91


Figure 2.1  Krashen’s the Role of Output 40
Figure 2.2  The Role of Conversation in Language Learning 42

                                    

REFERENCES

Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural 　　perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom [Electronic version]. The Modern Language Journal, 83(iii), 303-318.

Aschermann, J. L. (2000). Children teaching and learning in peer collaborative interactions. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State.

Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C. D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education [Electronic version]. Sport, Education
and Society, 8 (2), 179-198.

Barker, L. L. (1982). Communication in the classroom: Original essays. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.

Bershon, B. L. (1992). Cooperative problem solving: A link to inner speech. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups
(pp. 36-47). USA: Cambridge University Press.

Boggiano, A. K., Klinger, C. A., & Main, D. S. (1986). Enhancing interest in peer interaction: A development analysis [Electronic version]. Child
Development, 57, 852-861.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47.

Chambers, S. M. (1995). Age, prior opinions, and peer interactions in opinion restructuring [Electronic version]. Child Development, 66, 178-192.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

Chinn, C. A., O’Donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning [Electronic version]. Journal of 　　Experimental Education, 69 (1), 77-98.

Cooper, C. R., Marquis, A., & Ayers-Lopez, S. (1982). Peer learning in the classroom: Tracing developmental patterns and consequences of children's spontaneous interactions. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 69-84). New York: Academic Press.

Crago, M. B., Eriks-Brophy, A., Pesco, D., & McAlpine. L. (1997). Culturally based miscommunication in classroom interaction. [Electronic version]. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 28, 245-254.

Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential [Electronic version].Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343.

Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 9-19.

De Stefano, J., Pepinsky, H., & Sanders, T. (1982). Discourse rules for literacy learning in a classroom. In L. C. Wilkinson, (Ed.), Communicating
in the Classroom. New York: Academic Press.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language
Research.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dore, J. (1977). Children’s illocutionary acts. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension: Vol. 1 (pp. 227-244). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Edwards, J. R. (1979). Social class differences and the identification of sex in children’s speech. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 284-290). New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Edwards, V. (1989). Patios and the politics of protest: Black English in British classrooms. In O. Garcia, & R. Otheguy (Eds.), English across cultures, cultures across English: A reader in cross-cultural communication (pp. 359-72). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.

Ellis, R. (1985). Teacher-pupil interaction in second language development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden, (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 69-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. USA: John Benjamins B.V.

Farris, C. S. (1991). The gender of child discourse: Same-sex peer socialization through language use in a Taiwan preschool. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 1, 198-224.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., Karns, K., Calhoon, M. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Hewlett, S. (2000). Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks [Electronic version]. The Elementary School Journal, 100 (3), 184-212.

Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not orange and don’t need to be [Electronic version]. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 83-90.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Granstrom, K. (1996). Private communication between students in the classroom in relation to different classroom features [Electronic version]. Educational Psychology, Dec, 16 (4), 349-352.

Grundy, S. (1997). Challenging and changing: Communicative competence and the classroom. In D. Bronwyn., & C. David (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Vol. 3. Oral discourse an education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Guthrie, L. F., & Guthrie, G. P. (1987) Teacher language use in a Chinese bilingualclassroom. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and 　　Development, 205-233.

Gumperz, J. J. (1981). The linguistic bases of communicative competence. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.

Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Communicative competence in educational Perspective. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press Inc.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Language in a social perspective. Explorations in the Functions of Language. 48-71.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hargrove, P. M., Frerichs, J., & Heino, K. (1999). A format for identifying interactions among measures of communication skills: A case study
[Electronic version]. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 11-25.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Understanding interactive behaviors: Looking at six mirrors of the classroom. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 36-48). USA: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 174-202). USA: Cambridge University Press.

King, L. H. (1993). High and low Achievers’ perceptions and cooperative learning in two small groups [Electronic version]. The Elementary School
Journal, Vol. 93 (4), 399-416.

Krashen, S. D.(1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. UK:Prentice-Hall International Ltd.

Kumpulainen, K., & Kaartinen, S. (2003). The interpersonal dynamics of collaborative reasoning in peer interactive dyads [Electronic version]. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 71(4), 333-370.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leman, P. J., & College, G. (2002). Argument structure, argument content, and cognitive change in children’s peer interaction. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163 (1), 40-57.

Lisi, R. D. (2002). From marbles to instant messenger: Implications of Piaget's ideas about peer learning. [Electronic version]. Theory Into Practice, 41 (1), 5-12.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.

Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 377-393).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

McCarthey, S. J., & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interactions during writing. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N.Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 17-35). USA: Cambridge University Press.

Meijnen, G. W., & Guldemond, H. (2002). Grouping in primary schools and reference processes [Electronic version]. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8 (3), 229-248.

Moore, A., & Young, S. (1997). Clarifying the blurred imagine: Estimating the inter-rater reliability of performance assessments. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 319).

Mulryan, C. M. (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students’ cooperative small-group work in mathematics [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Research, 87(5), 280-291.

O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and　　performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 120-144). USA: Cambridge University Press.

Ogden, L. (2000). Collaborative tasks, collaborative children: An analysis of 　　reciprocity during peer interaction at key stage 1 [Electronic version]. British Educational Research Journal, 26 (2), 211-226.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. (A. Rosin, Trans.). New York: Viking Penguin Inc.

Piaget, J. (1987). Possibility and necessity: Volume 1, the role of possibility in cognitive development. (H. Feider, Trans.). USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Raven, J., Raven, J.C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales, section 3: The standard progressive matrices. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1997). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. England: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Rodriguez Garcia, L. D. R. (2001). A cognitive framework for the development of speaking-reading skills: Can oral peer interaction enhance reading
comprehension of authentic texts? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New York. (UMI No. 9997994)

Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs make a right…if they argue together [Electronic version]. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461-494.

Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, M. R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: OUP.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Ability grouping and student achievement in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis [Electronic version]. Review of 　　Educational Research, 60, 471-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz
& N. Miller (Eds.),Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 145-173). USA: Cambridge University Press.

Stuart, M. A. (1994). Effects of grading on cooperation and achievement in two fourth- grade math classes [Electronic version]. The Elementary School Journal, 95 (1), 11-21.

Sturm, J. M., & Nelson, N. W. (1997). Formal classroom lessons: New perspectives on a familiar discourse event [Electronic version]. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 28, 255-273.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied 　　Linguistics, 16, 371-391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, iii, 320-337.

Taal, M., & Oppenheimer, L. (1989). Socio-cognitive conflict and peer interaction: Development of compensation [Electronic version]. European　　Journal of Social Psychology. 19, 77-83.

Tesch, R. (1989). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London: Falmer Press.

Tharp, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life－Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tudge, J. R. H. (1992). Processes and consequences of peer collaborations: A Vygotskian analysis [Electronic version]. Child Development, 63, 1364-1379.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1999). Thought and language. Alex Kozulin (Ed.). USA: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wells, G. (1998). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anton & DiCamilla’s socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaboration interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 343-353.

Wilkinson, L. C. (Ed.). (1982). Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

校內：立即公開
校外：2005-07-12公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文