[[alternative]]後設認知聽力策略教學對台灣大學生聽力理解力之影響

碩士[[abstract]]本研究旨在探討後設認知聽力策略教學對台灣大學學生英文聽解力之影響。此外，本研究也探討台灣大學學生對後設認知聽力教學的態度。研究對象為大學生一年級兩班，共八十六位學生。實驗組接受後設認知聽力策略訓練輔以課堂學習單和學習日誌的方式進行教學。然而，控制組則接受傳統的聽力教學。本次後設認知聽力策略實驗共歷時十六週。在2015年的暑假7月11日，研究者邀請參與此研究的實驗組及對照組的學生們回到學校接受延遲英文聽力理解測驗。第二次及第三次全民英檢英文聽力理解測驗，共相隔三週。 本實驗透過量化與質化的混合式方法，折衷取其優使本研究的內容更具完整性。研究工具包含：(1)個人背景問卷調查、(2)三套全民英檢英文聽力測驗本、(3)後設認知覺察聽力問卷、(4)學習日誌以及(5)訪談紀錄。本研究採用SPSS獨立樣本T檢定來做英文聽力前測、後測、延遲測驗的量化分析，並利用成對樣本T檢定檢視歷經十週後，實驗組的學生有無後設認知覺察，更運用the Pearson Product Moment Correlation研究後設認知各項因素與全民英檢聽解力之間的關係。最後，善用訪談記錄和學習日誌來揭發學習者對於後設認知聽力策略教學的態度。 根據本研究量化結果顯示，實驗組在接受後設認知聽力策略教學之後英文聽解力並無顯著差異。雖然經過十週的後設認知聽力策略教學後，可使實驗組的學生們腦海裡存有後設認知聽力策略的概念，且這一些後設認知聽力策略對英文聽解力有顯著的關係，但卻沒有明顯增加受測者的英文聽解力，因此這一些結果，能保有商榷的空間。除此之外，對於後設認知聽力策略教學，百分之六十七的實驗組受訪者抱持著肯定的態度、百分之二十的實驗組學習者則保持中立的立場、然而卻有百分之十三的實驗組學生表示負面的態度。 最後，本研究質化結果表示，此研究能存在許多限制，還有許多複雜的影響因素無法被控制在其中，如：學習者個人的學習偏好、學習意願、學習動機或是一位採取主動學習或被動學習的學習者，這些因素也同時影響著此研究結果。本研究建議未來的研究方向可著重於：(1)找不同科的老師一同合作，把後設認知策略教學，運用在不一樣的教學情境下；(2)個人特質之因素需考慮到研究中，例：學習者的學習風格；(3)邀請更多不同的學習者參與此研究，如：不同程度的英文學習者(高階程度、中階程度、低階程度)加入到後設認知聽力策略教學的研究行列裡。[[abstract]]The current study investigated the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL Taiwanese college students’ English listening comprehension. Moreover, their attitudes were examined. The study was conducted in two required English laboratory classes. Eighty-six students voluntarily participated in the study. Most of them were freshmen. The experimental group was given metacognitive strategies training, whereas the control group received traditional listening teaching. The whole study lasted 18 weeks. All participants in both groups were welcomed back taking the GEPT delayed tests on July 11th, 2015. The interval between the second time and the third time was 3 weeks. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were applied in this study. Five instruments included background questionnaires, three versions of GEPT listening comprehension tests, metacognitive awareness listening questionnaires (MALQs), learning journals, and interviews. The data from three GEPT tests and MALQs were analyzed by applying the Independent Sample T-tests, the Paired Sample t-tests and the Pearson Product Moment Correlation on SPSS. Furthermore, the interviewed data and learning journals, representing the experimental group’s attitudes, were analyzed as well. The results revealed no significant differences between the experimental and the control groups in GEPT listening post- and delayed tests, showing metacognitive strategy instruction was ineffective for learners in the experimental group. In addition, the experimental group’s participants had metacognitive concepts in mind showing by paired t-tests after ten weeks of instruction, presenting significant positive but low correlations between metacognitive awareness and participants’ post-tests demonstrating by independent t-tests. Moreover, 67% of the interviewees’ attitudes toward this instruction were positive, with 20% neutral, and 13% negative. Finally, interview data showed some constraints, such as learners’ individual differences (learning preferences), the willingness to learn, their low learning motivations, and the active or passive roles (integrating the learned metacognitive strategies into their own learning) in the present study. The findings suggest that future research could (1) employ the metacognitive strategy instruction by cooperating with different areas of teachers, (2) take individual characteristics (learning styles) into consideration, and (3) engage more participants at different English proficiency (high-, mid-, and low-level) in the metacognitive listening studies.[[tableofcontents]]TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT................................................i DEDICATION............................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................v LIST OF TABLES........................................vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background of the Study.................................1 Purposes of the Study...................................4 Significance of the Study...............................5 Research Questions......................................6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Listening Comprehension.................................7 Listening Difficulties for L2 Learners..................8 Definitions of Metacognitive Strategies................10 Metacognitive Strategies and Listening.................14 Metacognitive Strategy Instruction.....................17 Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in ESL Countries: Singapore, U.S., Canada................................22 Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in EFL Countries: Iran, Turkey, China, Taiwan............................24 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Participants The experimental group.............................44 The control group..................................44 Data Collection Materials..........................................46 The textbook Network 2.........................46 In-class learning worksheets...................47 Instruments........................................48 The background questionnaires..................48 The listening comprehension (pre-, post-, and delayed) tests..................................................49 The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire..........................................51 Learning journals...............................52 Semi-structured interviews......................53 Procedures.............................................53 Data Analysis...............................................56 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results Research Question 1................................61 Research Question 2................................63 Research Question 3................................64 Research Question 4................................67 Research Question 5................................69 Discussion.............................................83 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION Summary of the Findings in the Current Study...........97 Limitations of the Present Study......................100 Pedagogical Implications..............................102 Suggestions for the Future Studies....................103 REFERENCES............................................104 APPENDIXES............................................115 Appendix A. In-class Learning Worksheets Appendix B. English Background Questionnaire Appendix C. Chinese Background Questionnaire Appendix D. GEPT Listening Comprehension Sample Test Appendix E. English Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire Appendix F. Chinese Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire Appendix G. Learning Journals Appendix H. Semi-structured Interview Questions Appendix I. Sample Lesson Plan (The Experimental Group) Appendix J. Sample Lesson Plan (The Control Group) Appendix K. The SPSS Cronbach’s Alph Result LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Oxford’s (2011) Categorizations of Language Learning Strategies....................................11 Table 2. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) Classifications of Language Learning Strategies............................................12 Table 3. Vandergrift’s (1996) Taxonomies of Language Listening Strategies..................................14 Table 4. Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (2010)Instructional Stages and Metacognitive Processes....................21 Table 5. Metacognitive Strategy Instruction Studies in ESL / EFL Countries...................................37 Table 6. Participants’ Background Information........ 46 Table 7. Five Listening Variances in MALQ.............52 Table 8. Research Procedures..........................56 Table 9. Independent Sample T-test of the English Listening Comprehension Pre-tests.....................62 Table 10. Independent Sample T-test of the English Listening Comprehension Post-tests....................63 Table 11. Independent Sample T-tests of the English Listening Comprehension Delayed tests.................64 Table 12. Experimental Group: Descriptive Statistics ......................................................65 Table 13. Experimental Group: Paired Sample T-tests of Pre- and Post- MALQs...............................66 Table 14. Experimental Group: Correlation between the Post-listening Performance and the Five Factors Related Metacognitive Awareness in MALQ.......................68 Table 15. Experimental Group: Correlation between the Delayed Listening Performance and the Five Factors Related Metacognitive Awareness in MALQ...............69 Table 16. Interviewees’ Background Information........69 Table 17. Experimental Group’s Attitudes toward the Metacognitive Strategy Instruction....................70 Table 18. Employing the Metacognitive Strategies in the Experimental Group’s..................................75 Table 19. Experimental Group’s Perceived English Improvements..........................................76 Table 20. Experimental Group’s Suggestions............82[[note]]學號: 601110355, 學年度: 10