• 沒有找到結果。

國中英語教師與學生對於文法教學與錯誤訂正信念之研究 - 政大學術集成

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "國中英語教師與學生對於文法教學與錯誤訂正信念之研究 - 政大學術集成"

Copied!
171
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士在職專班碩士論文. 指導教授 : 余明忠博士 Advisor: Ming-chung Yu, Ph.D.. 立. 政 治 大. ‧ 國. 學. 國中英語教師與學生對於文法教學與錯誤訂正信念之研究. ‧. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. Similarities and Differences between EFL Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs in Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. Ch. engchi. i n U. 研究生:洪安嫻撰 An-hsien Hung 中華民國 101 年七月 July, 2012. v.

(2) Similarities and Differences between EFL Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs in Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. 立. A Master Thesis Presented to Department of English,. 政 治 大. ‧ 國. 學. National Chengchi University. ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. In Partial Fulfillment. of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts. by An-hsien Hung July, 2012.

(3) To Dr. Ming-chung Yu 獻給我的恩師余明忠博士. 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. iii. i n U. v.

(4) Acknowledgments. With my deepest gratitude, I would like to thank those who ever helped me accomplish this work. First, I would like to owe the sincerest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Ming-chung Yu, who always gave me insightful suggestions in time. Without. 政 治 大. his heartwarming encouragement, enlightening guidance and unfailing support, this. 立. work would never be completed.. ‧ 國. 學. Second, I would like to thank Dr. Chieh-yue Yeh, Dr. Chiou-lan Chern, Dr.. ‧. Chun-yin Doris Chen, and Dr. Hsueh-ying Yu for their suggestions on refining the. Nat. sit. y. questionnaires and their affable encouragement.. n. al. er. io. Moreover, I would like to thank my dear colleagues and friends who ever gave. i n U. v. me support throughout the work, including Ching-ching Lin, Chun-ling Chen, Ellen. Ch. engchi. Huang, Hua-wei Su, Hung-ling Lin, Jing-mei Li, Kelly Chen, Kun-han Xie, Lily Lin, Maggie Chang, Tieh-kang Chang, Tzu-hui Wang, Wan-yu He, Wen-chan Wu, Xin-ru Hu, Xiu-qi Gan, Yan-jhen Lin, Ya-juan Chen, Yi-hua Du, Ying-wei Li, Zhu-xin Huang, and many others too numerous to mention. Last but not least, I would like to express my thanks to my family. Thank my beloved husband, Jun-kai Zheng, for taking care of our newborn baby, Shang-en, when I was struggling to finish this work. Besides, I would like to thank my little Shang-en for his company. Thank you two for always being there for me. iv.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ ix CHINESE ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ xi ENGLISH ABSTRACT............................................................................................. xiii. 政 治 大 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 立 Background and Motivation .................................................................................................. 1. ‧ 國. 學. Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 4. ‧. Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................ 5. sit. y. Nat. n. al. er. io. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 7. i n U. v. The Essence of Beliefs ........................................................................................................... 7. Ch. engchi. Teachers’ Beliefs ................................................................................................................... 8 Students’ Beliefs .................................................................................................................. 11 Comparison between Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs ........................................................ 13 Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs in Grammar Instruction .................................................... 14 Grammar and English Learning ....................................................................................... 14 Grammar Rules ................................................................................................................ 16 Grammar Terminologies .................................................................................................. 17 Grammar Practices ........................................................................................................... 17 Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs in Error Correction ........................................................... 18 Error Correction and English Learning ............................................................................ 18 v.

(6) The Suitable Corrector for Error Correction .................................................................... 19 The Suitable Time for Error Correction ........................................................................... 20 The Proper Way of Error Correction ............................................................................... 21 Students’ Expectation of Error Correction....................................................................... 22 Rationale of the Present Study and the Research Questions ................................................ 23. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 27 Participants........................................................................................................................... 27 Sample Size and Sampling Strategies .............................................................................. 27. 政 治 大 Teacher Participants ......................................................................................................... 32 立 Student Participants ......................................................................................................... 30. Instruments........................................................................................................................... 35. ‧ 國. 學. Student and Teacher Questionnaires ................................................................................ 36. ‧. The Content of the Original Questionnaires .................................................................... 37 Procedures ............................................................................................................................ 39. y. Nat. io. sit. Pre-implementation .......................................................................................................... 39. er. Expert Validity of Teacher and Student Questionnaires................................. 40. al. n. v i n Beliefs inCgrammar and Uerror correction ............................. 42 h e ninstruction i h c g Further suggestions ............................................................................... 51 Personal information ............................................................................. 41. Pilot Study ..................................................................................................... 51 Validity. ................................................................................................. 52 Reliability. ............................................................................................. 54 Implementation ................................................................................................................ 55 Post-implementation ........................................................................................................ 55 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 57 To Answer the First Research Question .......................................................................... 57 To Answer the Second Research Question ...................................................................... 59 To Answer the Third Research Question ......................................................................... 59 vi.

(7) CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .................................................................................... 61 Similarities and Differences between Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs ............................... 61 The Result of Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................ 62 Beliefs in Grammar Instruction ..................................................................... 62 Grammar and English Learning ............................................................ 63 Grammar Rules ..................................................................................... 65 Grammar Terminologies ....................................................................... 66 Grammar Practices ................................................................................ 67 Beliefs in Error Correction ............................................................................ 69 Error Correction and English Learning ................................................. 70 The Suitable Corrector for Error Correction ......................................... 71. 政 治 大 The立 Students’ Expectation of Error Correction ..................................... 75. The Suitable Time for Error Correction ................................................ 72 The Proper Way of Error Correction ..................................................... 73 The Result of Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................. 76. ‧ 國. 學. Qualitative Analysis of Grammar Instruction ................................................ 77 Qualitative Analysis of Error Correction ....................................................... 80. ‧. Teachers’ Backgrounds ........................................................................................................ 83. sit. y. Nat. Genders ............................................................................................................................ 84. io. er. Seniorities ........................................................................................................................ 85. al. v i n Ch Majors .............................................................................................................................. 87 engchi U n. Degrees of Formal Schooling .......................................................................................... 86. Personal Experiences ....................................................................................................... 87 Students’ Backgrounds ........................................................................................................ 88 Genders ............................................................................................................................ 88 Grades .............................................................................................................................. 89 Personal Experiences ....................................................................................................... 90 Parents’ Native Languages .............................................................................................. 92 Learning Experiences....................................................................................................... 93. vii.

(8) DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 97 Similarities and Differences between Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs............................... 97 Similar Beliefs in Grammar Instruction ......................................................... 98 Different Beliefs in Grammar Instruction .................................................... 102 Similar and Different Beliefs in Error Correction.......................................................... 104 Similar Beliefs in Error Correction .............................................................. 104 Different Beliefs in Error Correction ........................................................... 105 Teachers’ Background Factors .......................................................................................... 108 Students’ Background Factors ........................................................................................... 110. 治 政 大 Summary of Major Findings .............................................................................................. 113 立 Pedagogical Implications of the Study............................................................................... 115. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 113. ‧ 國. 學. Measures to Reach the Consensus between Teachers and Students .............................. 115. ‧. Suggestions for Re-examining the Present Education System ...................................... 116 Suggestions for Teachers’ Change in Attitudes ............................................................. 117. y. Nat. sit. Limitations of the Study..................................................................................................... 118. n. al. er. io. Recommendation for Further Research ............................................................................. 119. i n U. v. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 119. Ch. engchi. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 121 APPENDIX A: The Questionnaire for Experts ......................................................... 127 APPENDIX B: The English Teacher Questionnaire ................................................. 136 APPENDIX C: The English Student Questionnaire .................................................. 141 APPENDIX D: The Chinese Teacher Questionnaire ................................................ 146 APPENDIX E: The Chinese Student Questionnaire ................................................. 150 APPENDIX F: A Start List for Coding ..................................................................... 154. viii.

(9) LIST OF TABLES. Table 3.1 Sampling Strategies for Student Participants............................................... 29 Table 3.4 Results of the Personal Information of Teacher Participants ...................... 41 Table 3.5 Results of the Personal Information of Student Participants ....................... 42. 治 政 Table 3.7 Results of the Beliefs in Error Correction大 ................................................... 48 立 Table 3.8 Result of the Further Suggestions ................................................................ 51. Table 3.6 Results of the Beliefs in Grammar Instruction ............................................ 43. ‧ 國. 學. Table 3.9 Results of Factor Analysis on the Beliefs in Grammar Instruction ............. 53. ‧. Table 3.10 Results of Factor Analysis on the Beliefs in Error Correction .................. 54 Table 3.11 The Overall Procedure ............................................................................... 56. y. Nat. sit. Table 3.12 Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 60. n. al. er. io. Table 4.1 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in Grammar and English Learning........... 63. i n U. v. Table 4.2 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in Grammar Rules .................................... 65. Ch. engchi. Table 4.3 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in Grammar Terminologies ...................... 66 Table 4.4 Teachers’ and Students’ Belief in Grammar Practices ................................ 67 Table 4.5 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in Error Correction and English Learning ....................................................................................................................... 70 Table 4.6 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in the Suitable Corrector for Error Correction .................................................................................................................... 71 Table 4.7 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in the Suitable Time for Error Correction .................................................................................................................... 72 Table 4.8 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in the Proper Way of Error Correction ...................................................................................................................................... 74 ix.

(10) Table 4.9 Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs in Students’ Expectation of Error Correction .................................................................................................................... 75 Table 4.10 Different Beliefs Due to Teachers’ Genders.............................................. 84 Table 4.11 Different Beliefs Due to Teachers’ Seniorities .......................................... 86 Table 4.12 Different Beliefs Due to Teachers’ Degrees .............................................. 86 Table 4.13 Different Beliefs Due to Teachers’ Majors................................................ 87 Table 4.14 Summary of the Results Due to Teachers’ Different Backgrounds........... 88 Table 4.15 Different Beliefs Due to Students’ Genders .............................................. 89 Table 4.16 Different Beliefs Due to Students’ Grades ................................................ 90. 政 治 大 Table 4.18 Different Beliefs Due to Students’ Learning Experiences......................... 94 立 Table 4.17 Different Beliefs Due to Students’ Personal Experiences ......................... 92. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Table 4.19 Summary of the Results Due to Students’ Different Backgrounds ........... 95. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. x. i n U. v.

(11) 國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士在職專班. 碩士論文摘要. 政 治 大. 論文名稱: 國中英語教師與學生對於文法教學與錯誤訂正信念之研究. 立. ‧ 國. 學. 指導教授: 余明忠博士 研究生: 洪安嫻. ‧ sit. y. Nat. 論文提要內容:. n. al. er. io. 文法教學與錯誤訂正一直是課堂上的重要元素,因此了解老師與學生對於. Ch. i n U. v. 文法教學與錯誤訂正的信念有助於教學。本研究旨在探討台灣國民中學英語老. engchi. 師與學生對於文法教學與錯誤訂正的信念差異,並了解不同背景變項對於老師 與學生信念的影響。研究工具採自編問卷,針對大台北地區 141 位國民中學英 語老師與 214 位國民中學學生進行抽樣及問卷施測。資料分析採用 SPSS 18.0 版本,並將所得的資料以次數分配、百分比、平均數、獨立樣本 t 檢定及單因 子變異數分析進行資料分析。本研究的主要結論如下: 一、老師與學生都相信文法教學與錯誤訂正很重要,但是溝通能力更重要。. xi.

(12) 二、老師與學生都表示最喜歡團體口語練習,其次是團體書寫練習、個人書寫 練習,最後才是個人口語練習。 三、學生比老師更重視文法教學和錯誤訂正,而老師比學生更重視文法練習。 四、學生比老師更肯定同儕訂正,並相信錯誤訂正對當事人與同儕都有益。. 政 治 大. 五、學生認為口語錯誤和書寫錯誤都需要即時訂正,而老師認為只有書寫錯誤. 立. 一定要訂正,但口語錯誤只要不影響溝通便不需訂正。. ‧ 國. 學. 六、老師的性別、年資、學歷與主修科系會影響其文法教學與錯誤訂正的信念。. io. sit. y. Nat. 信念。. ‧. 七、學生的性別、年級、生活經驗與學習經歷會影響其文法教學與錯誤訂正的. n. al. er. 根據上述研究結論,本研究針對國民中學英語教師、教育行政主管機關及 後續研究提出具體建議。. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 關鍵字:教師信念、學生信念、文法教學、錯誤訂正. xii.

(13) Abstract. Grammar instruction and error correction have always been important elements in class. Understanding students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction is helpful to teaching. The purpose of the study is to. 政 治 大. investigate (1) similarities and differences between Taiwanese junior high school. 立. students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, (2). ‧ 國. 學. background factors that may cause differences in teachers’ beliefs in grammar. ‧. instruction and error correction, and (3) background factors that may cause. y. Nat. al. er. io. sit. differences in students’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction.. n. Self-designed questionnaires were distributed to 141 English teachers and 214. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. students in junior high schools in Great Taipei Area. Number distribution, percentage, average, independent-samples t-test, and one-way ANOVA were adopted to analyze the data collected by the questionnaires. A summary of the results is as follows: 1. Both students and teachers believed that while grammar instruction and error correction are essential, communication is more important. 2. Both students and teachers reported their preference for grammar practicing in the xiii.

(14) same sequential order of group oral practices, group writing practices, individual writing practices, and individual oral practices. 3. Students valued grammar instruction and error correction more than teachers, while teachers valued grammar practices more than students.. 政 治 大. 4. Students valued peer correction more than teachers and believed error correction. 立. is beneficial to those who make errors and their classmates.. ‧ 國. 學. 5. Students believed both spoken and written errors need immediate correction.. ‧. Teachers believed that correcting written errors is necessary, but that there is no. Nat. io. sit. y. need to correct the spoken errors as long as they do not obstruct communication.. er. 6. Teachers’ genders, seniorities, degrees of formal schooling, and their majors were. al. n. v i n influential to their beliefsC in h grammar instruction e n g c h i Uand error correction.. 7. Students’ genders, grades, personal experiences, and learning experiences were influential to their beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction. Based on the findings, suggestions are provided for junior high school English teachers, educational institutions and researchers of related topics.. Keywords: teachers’ beliefs, students’ beliefs, grammar instruction, error correction xiv.

(15) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Background and Motivation. 立. 政 治 大. As a human being, what we think often dominates what we do. Our belief. ‧ 國. 學. systems have a crucial impact on our behavior. The beliefs of language learning play. ‧. an important role in all aspects of language teaching and learning. Teachers, students,. Nat. io. sit. y. parents, schools, and even the society hold different beliefs in language learning. All. er. these beliefs intertwine in our classroom. Among them, teachers’ and students’. al. n. v i n beliefs, which directly affectC theheffectiveness of students’ e n g c h i U learning and teachers’ instructions, are definitely the most important. Recently, in the fields of second language acquisition (SLA), researchers have regained their interests in teachers’ and students’ belief systems, trying to find out how the two belief systems interact with each other (Brown, 2009). Research on students’ and teachers’ belief systems generally can be divided into three different categories: students’ beliefs, teachers’ beliefs, and the 1.

(16) comparison between students’ and teachers’ beliefs. The research on students’ beliefs usually aims to understand what is in students’ mind and tries to predict the possible conflicts they may encounter over the gap between the expectations of their foreign language learning and the real learning situation (Horwitz, 1988; Mori, 1999). Horwitz (1988) reported that many beginning learners in the foreign language classrooms faced inconsistency between their own beliefs and the teacher’s teaching. 政 治 大. practices. Mori (1999) found that learners’ beliefs significantly correlated with their. 立. accomplishment in foreign language learning, their perception of the courses, and. ‧ 國. 學. the language instructions they received. On the other hand, research on teacher’s. ‧. beliefs lends support to the idea that teachers’ personal pedagogical beliefs have a. Nat. io. sit. y. strong impact on their classroom instructions (Brog, 1998; Johnson, 1994; Kagan,. er. 1992). Brog (1998) observed that the teachers’ initial training, in-service training,. al. n. v i n C h their pedagogical and teaching experiences constituted e n g c h i U systems. In addition to the two lines of research mentioned above, there is still some other research on the comparison between students’ and teachers’ beliefs. Kern (1995) noted that students were generally more optimistic about learning a foreign language than their teachers. A similar result was also found in Brown’s (2009) study. Based on the results of the various studies on the comparison between teachers’ and students’ beliefs, some researchers suggested that there be at least two noticeable areas showing great gaps 2.

(17) between teachers and students: grammar instruction and error correction (Brown, 2009; Shawn et al., 2009). Some researchers have compared the perception differences in the grammar instruction and error correction between teachers and students (Liao & Wang, 2009; Schulz 1996, 2001). Schulz (1996) conducted the comparison of students’ and teachers’ beliefs in the American college foreign language (FL) classes, finding that. 政 治 大. students believed the formal grammar instructions and error correction were. 立. essential necessary, while fewer teachers valued grammar instructions and thought. ‧ 國. 學. students’ oral errors needed to be corrected as long as they did not hinder. ‧. communication. Based on Brog (1998) and Schulz (2001), Liao and Wang (2009). Nat. io. sit. y. conducted a similar survey by comparing the EFL senior high school students’ and. er. teachers’ beliefs in Taiwan. They found that senior high school students in Taiwan. al. n. v i n C hand error correctionUmore than their teachers. The also liked grammar instruction engchi. two studies reported that students and teachers in both eastern and western contexts valued grammar instruction and error correction. However, different learning experiences in foreign language learning would affect students’ expectations and beliefs (Brown, 2009; Davis, 2003). Junior high school students, who have comparatively fewer years of language learning, might have different beliefs from senior high school students. Meanwhile, junior high 3.

(18) school teachers might also have different beliefs from senior high school teachers because of their different professional experiences (Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1992). Little research has been conducted on comparing junior high school EFL students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction in Taiwan. The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan started to advocate Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the Grade 1-9 Curriculum in 2001. Does the trend of. 政 治 大. CLT in Taiwan bring about any change to the students’ and teachers’ beliefs in. 立. Taiwan and result in any differences in students’ and teachers’ beliefs? This calls for. ‧ 國. 學. further investigation.. y. ‧. Nat. n. er. io. al. sit. Purpose of the Study. i n U. v. The purpose of this study was to find out the similarities and differences. Ch. engchi. between junior high school students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction. In this way, the researcher tries to help teachers understand their students better, bridge the gaps between teaching and learning, and improve their teaching efficacy by overcoming the possible conflicts between teachers and students beforehand. The research results may serve as a resource for teachers to adjust their teaching for creating a win-win situation for both students and teachers.. 4.

(19) Significance of the Study. The studies on students’ and teachers’ beliefs have existed for years, but it is necessary to re-examine their beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction under the present situation. The MOE in Taiwan has advocated CLT for more than a decade. However, some research has reported that it was hard to put CLT into practice in Asia (Anderson, 1993; Littlewood, 2007). Can the precious efforts and. 治 政 time spending on CLT really bring about changes in大 English classes in Taiwan? Are 立 ‧ 國. 學. there any differences in students’ and teachers’ beliefs? Do these differences result in any good or bad influences on teachers’ teaching? Wubbel (1992) noted that the. ‧. changes in beliefs usually caused the changes of practices. The present study, with. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. the intention to find out the possible influences of the CLT approach on students’. i n U. v. and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, may serve as a. Ch. engchi. prediction for the future teaching trend for all the teachers to further refine their own teaching.. Definition of Terms. Grammar Instruction In this study, grammar instruction refers to focus on form. Focus on form is 5.

(20) unlike the traditional grammar teaching which consists of isolated forms under the structural syllabus. It is a kind of communicative tasks which draws students’ attentions on linguistic elements in the lessons emphasizing on meaning and communication (Long, 1991).. Error Correction. 政 治 大. In the present study, error correction refers to give feedback on students’. 立. unconscious performance problems in communication. Lai (2004) regarded it as a. ‧ 國. 學. kind of focus on form and termed as reactive focus on form. However, Shawn et al.. ‧. (2009) noted that learners tended to consider error correction different from. Nat. io. sit. y. grammar instruction. Therefore, they suggested viewing grammar instruction and. er. error correction as two different categories when investigating students’ and teachers’. al. n. v i n C hstudy follows theUsuggestion of Shawn et al. (2009) beliefs. Accordingly, the present engchi and regards error correction as a distinct category from grammar instruction.. 6.

(21) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, the literature on the students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction is reviewed in seven sections. The first section. 治 政 introduces the essence of beliefs. The second to the大 fourth section are about teachers’ 立 ‧ 國. 學. beliefs, students’ beliefs, and the comparison between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. The fifth and sixth section portray students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar. ‧. instruction and error correction. The last section presents the rationale for the present. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. study and the research questions.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. The Essence of Beliefs. The personal belief system functions as guidance for individual behaviors. It possesses powerful impact on behaviors. Comparing with knowledge, beliefs, which function as the blueprints of the behaviors, are more influential in directing individuals to arrange and clarify problems and tasks (Pajares, 1992). There are several characteristics of beliefs. First, beliefs are stored in a 7.

(22) structured network (Nespor, 1987). Rokeach (1968) noted that beliefs were different in strength. The central beliefs possessed greater control over behaviors and presented higher resistance to changes than the peripheral ones. Sometimes, even when there was no reason or need for the beliefs to exist, they still survived. Second, beliefs are presumptions based on the early personal experiences (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). This characteristic was called “episodic storage” by Nespor. Besides,. 政 治 大. the beliefs tend to be personal and arbitrary (Nespor, 1987). Sometimes, the. 立. contradict beliefs can co-exist in the same network (Peterman, 1991). Third, beliefs. ‧ 國. 學. do not always reflect reality. They often mix with personal affections and values. ‧. (Nespor, 1987). Pajares (1992) reported individuals tended to stick to their beliefs. Nat. io. sit. y. even at the cost of distorting reality. Fourth, beliefs are free to be applied on. er. different situations (Nespor, 1987). They would not be confined to any specific. al. n. v i n C ha position for individuals situations. Last, beliefs provide e n g c h i U to refer to (Pajares, 1992). With beliefs, individuals can identify themselves with the communities they approved.. Teachers’ Beliefs. Teachers’ beliefs are influential. Some research has reported that knowing teachers’ beliefs is helpful and enables the predictions of teaching practices (Johnson, 8.

(23) 1994; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). Brog (1998) noted that teachers’ beliefs were composed of their pedagogical systems, educational backgrounds, professional experiences, and their teaching context. Kagan (1992) reported that teachers’ beliefs, which help teachers become independent in teaching, were important to both experienced and pre-service teachers. Teachers’ beliefs are hard to change ( Kagan, 1992; Nespor, 1987; Wubbels,. 政 治 大. 1992). As Kagan (1992) noted, teachers, unlike students, were not being challenged. 立. for the inappropriateness and inconsistency in their beliefs. Without the external. ‧ 國. 學. challenges, teachers’ beliefs might keep stable for years. Besides, teachers’ beliefs. ‧. function as a filter for teachers to absorb new information (Brog, 1998; Goodman,. Nat. io. sit. y. 1998; Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). Goodman (1998) called this function as an. er. “intuitive screen.” The intuitive screen was formed by the early childhood and. al. n. v i n C has the criterion forUaccepting new beliefs. In other school experiences. It was used engchi words, teachers’ beliefs, which are rarely challenged, function as the protective device to reject the new inconsistent beliefs and to confirm the stability of the belief system. However, there are still some factors which may change teachers’ beliefs. Goodman (1988) reported that early childhood and formal schooling experiences were influential to teachers’ beliefs. Johnson (1994) noted that teachers’ formal 9.

(24) language learning experiences, including the experiences related to their teachers, curricula, activities, and organizations, were important to their beliefs. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs may change because of their teaching experiences (Colton & Sparks-Langer, 1993; Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1992). Colton and Sparks-Langer (1993) brought about the constructivist theory that teachers constructed their beliefs with their experiences. Experienced teachers would make use of their old. 政 治 大. experiences to interpret the new situation, to develop their own logic for dealing. 立. with class events effectively, and to make their teaching decisions based on the. ‧ 國. 學. importance of the issues.. ‧. However, there are still discrepancies between teachers’ beliefs and teaching. Nat. io. sit. y. practices. Pajares (1992) noted that teachers tended to return to conservative. er. practices in teaching. The reason might be that although teachers possessed their. al. n. v i n own beliefs in teaching, theyCwere h econstantly i U in the gap between their n g c htrapped beliefs and reality (Johnson, 1994; Littlewood, 2007). Their beliefs reflect the. dissatisfaction with their own learning experiences. They want to improve the old teaching practices, but end up with no complete model to follow in the reality. As a result, teachers choose to adopt the conservative practices for the sake of playing safe. To solve this problem, Johnson (1994) suggested that teachers should understand their own beliefs, strengthen their faith in teaching, and make their 10.

(25) teaching meaningful in the social context.. Students’ Beliefs. Students’ beliefs are important because they have a great impact on not only students’ learning but their learning strategies (Brown, 2009; Mori, 1999). Understanding students’ beliefs can help teachers teach more effectively (Horwitz, 1988).. 立. 政 治 大. ‧ 國. 學. Students’ beliefs are more likely to change than teachers’. Kagan (1992) noted that learning new things might get involved in changing beliefs. Teachers might help. ‧. students change their beliefs in three steps. First, they made students clarify their. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. beliefs. Then, they would lead students to discuss the inappropriateness and. i n U. v. inconsistency in beliefs. In the process of clarification and discussion, teachers. Ch. engchi. would encourage students to coordinate and to distinguish the old beliefs from the new ones. These steps helped students become more open-minded to the change of their beliefs and more willing to accept new ideas. There are several factors which might result in changes of students’ beliefs. Mori (1999) noted that teachers’ instructions might affect students’ beliefs. Kern (1995) reported that students’ beliefs might correspond to not only their teachers’ instructions but the current educational trend. However, teachers’ instructions were 11.

(26) not the only factor that might change students’ beliefs. Students’ beliefs tend to vary and refine under the influences of their learning experiences (Brown, 2009; Davis, 2003). The refinement helps students enhance their learning and improve their performances (Popvic, 2010). Moreover, students’ personal backgrounds may also result in the differences in beliefs. According to Brown (2009) and Davis (2003), students at different ages might have different beliefs.. 政 治 大. Research on students’ beliefs provides teachers a better channel to probe into. 立. students’ beliefs. Many students still believe that learning a foreign language. ‧ 國. 學. involves translation, and put their focus mainly on grammar learning and. ‧. vocabularies (Horwitz, 1988; Mori, 1999; Shawn et al., 2009). Besides, many. Nat. io. sit. y. students tend to impute their language performance to aptitude. However, this. er. tendency might have negative impact on their learning (Horwitz, 1988). Similar. al. n. v i n C h that the lower achievers finding was found in Mori (1999) e n g c h i U tended to believe more in. language aptitude. Therefore, Mori (1999) suggested teachers to take students’ beliefs into consideration, to encourage them to change, and to educate them to give up the myth of language aptitude. A lot of research has reported that when students’ beliefs did not fit in with actual teaching conditions and instructions, they might give up their learning (Davis, 2003; Horwitz, 1988). Kern (1995) noted that the teachers’ beliefs did not have great 12.

(27) influences over students’ beliefs. What really affected students’ beliefs was teachers’ teaching. Teachers should take students’ beliefs into account and encourage students to establish correct expectations of language learning (Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995; Mori, 1999).. Comparison between Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs. 治 政 The discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ 大 beliefs do exist and it is 立 ‧ 國. 學. necessary for teachers to compare the beliefs between them (Popvic, 2010). Both similarities and differences are found in students’ and teachers’ beliefs. In terms of. ‧. similarities, both students and teachers agree that imitation is an important way to. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. learn English, that motivation is a crucial factor in learners’ success, and that errors. i n U. v. are easily kept as habits in the interaction between students (Davis, 2003). Moreover,. Ch. engchi. Kern (1995) reported that both students and teachers approved that learning a language was different from learning other subjects. On the other hand, differences are found that students are more optimistic in language learning than their teachers (Brown, 2009; Kern, 1995). They believe that they will ultimately master the language in the near future. The results of comparing students’ and teachers’ beliefs show great discrepancies in three aspects: grammar instruction, error correction, and group/ pair 13.

(28) work (Brown, 2009). According to Ellis et al. (2001), error correction was called reactive focus on form and classified as a type of grammar instruction. However, Shawn et al. (2009) found that learners perceived grammar instruction and error correction differently. He suggested the further studies to discuss the two sections separately. Meanwhile, the issues about group/ pair work tend to be incorporated into the discussion about grammar instruction (Lai, 2004; Liao & Wang, 2009). As a. 政 治 大. result, great discrepancies between teachers’ and students’ beliefs might exist in. 立. grammar instruction and error correction.. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs in Grammar Instruction. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. In this section, the literature on students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar. i n U. v. instruction is reviewed in four aspects: grammar and English learning, grammar. Ch. engchi. rules, grammar terminologies, and grammar practices.. Grammar and English Learning. Both students and teachers believe that grammar instruction is important. A majority of the students and teachers believe that grammar instruction is helpful in English learning (Liao & Wang, 2009; Schulz, 2001). Some researches has reported 14.

(29) that students believe learning grammar is essential for their English learning (Chung & Huang, 2009; Schulz, 1996, 2001). They even value grammar more than communication (Brown, 2009; Horwitz, 1988; Mori, 1999). Horwitz (1988) noted that many students believed that learning English was no more than translating. They tend to put their emphasis on learning grammar and memorizing vocabularies. They hope teachers to spend more time teaching grammar in class (Chung & Huang,. 政 治 大. 2009; Liao & Wang, 2009). Davis (2003) found that students hoped to accept. 立. grammar instruction as early as possible. They liked their teachers to teach one. ‧ 國. 學. grammar point at one time, and felt more secure to be exposed to the grammar that. ‧. they had learned before. Students love grammar more than teachers. As a result,. Nat. io. sit. y. teachers should try to understand student’s attitudes toward grammar instruction and. er. teach them the concept that communication is more important than accuracy (Brown,. al. n. v i n C the 2009). In Borg’s (1998) study, h eteacher i U suggested that developing n g chehinterviewed communicative competence should be the main focus of the class. Nevertheless, there is always a gap between beliefs and real practices.. Students believe that learning grammar is helpful to get better performance in exams. Passing the tests would be their immediate motivation to learn grammar (Chung & Huang, 2009). However, Schulz (1996) reported that although students believed grammar was important, only less than half of them liked to learn grammar. The 15.

(30) reason might be that students think grammar learning is boring (Shawn et al., 2009). Teachers prefer grammar less than students for their emphasis on developing communicative competence. They want to spend less time on grammar in class because they also think grammar instruction is boring (Liao & Wang, 2009). However, they still spend a lot of time on grammar in class for students’ better performance in exams (Anderson, 1993).. 立. 政 治 大 Grammar Rules. ‧ 國. 學. There are two different common practices in delivering grammar rules in class:. ‧. the inductive way and the deductive way. For delivering inductively, teachers give. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. students many example sentences and help them generate the rules. On the contrary,. i n U. v. teachers who follow the deductive way would give students rules first and then. Ch. engchi. further apply the rules to other sentences. Some research has reported that students love the deductive way more than their teachers (Brown, 2009; Schulz, 2001). Students believe that it is more effective and reliable for teachers to explicitly explain grammar rules (Schulz, 2001). They regard teachers as authorities who have the duty to give explanations. This belief reflects that students rely too much on teachers. They are not independent enough in their own learning (Anderson, 1993). Teachers should help students develop autonomy in learning. Brog (1998) reported 16.

(31) that teachers should point out the problematic sentences for students to investigate grammar. In this way, students can not only get better understanding of grammar but develop a sense of achievement.. Grammar Terminologies. Both students and teachers believe that using grammar terminologies is. 治 政 helpful. Liao and Wang (2009) found that students 大 believed understanding 立 ‧ 國. 學. terminologies was important to them, while teachers believed that using grammar terminologies was helpful but should be limited. It is not because teachers do not. ‧. value grammar terminologies, but because they believe that overusing grammar. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. terminologies would cause more confusion in students’ learning.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Grammar Practices. Students think practicing grammar is important (Horwitz, 1988). They believe that if teachers allocate more time for practicing English, their speaking would be improved. However, in the real situation, it is hard for teachers, who have heavy burden to catch up with the tight teaching schedule, to spare more time on practicing (Chung & Huang, 2009). Teachers believe that grammar practices should relate to 17.

(32) the real life. They prefer practicing English in the real-life situation more than students (Brown, 2009; Schulz, 2001). Differences are also found between group/ pair practices and individual practices. According to Chung and Huang (2009), students reported that there were not enough group/ pair practices in class. Liao and Wang (2009) found students liked group/ pair practices more than teachers, while teachers liked individual. 政 治 大. practices more than students. But both students and teachers agreed that group. 立. practices were better than individual practices.. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs in Error Correction. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. In this section, the literature on students’ and teachers’ beliefs in error. i n U. v. correction is reviewed in five aspects: error correction and English learning, the. Ch. engchi. suitable corrector for error correction, the suitable time for error correction, the proper way of error correction, and students’ expectation of error correction.. Error Correction and English Learning. Both students and teachers believe that error correction is helpful to learning. However, different attitudes are found. Shawn et al. (2009) reported that students 18.

(33) felt negative to error correction. On the contrary, Schulz (1996) found students would like to be corrected in class. Chung and Huang (2009) also reported the similar belief that students desired error correction. Students approve error correction more than teachers (Davis, 2003; Liao & Wang, 2009). They want both their spoken and written errors to be corrected (Schulz, 2001). However, teachers only think it is necessary to correct written errors. Schulz (1996) noted that although. 政 治 大. teachers knew students welcome error correction, only few teachers agreed it is. 立. 學 ‧. ‧ 國. necessary to correct students’ spoken errors.. The Suitable Corrector for Error Correction. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. Teacher correction, peer correction and self correction are common ways of. i n U. v. error correction. Several research has found that teachers are the most favorable. Ch. engchi. correctors ( Liao & Wang, 2009; Satio, 1994; Schulz, 2001). They are often viewed as reliable authorities with expertise in giving explicit explanations and instructions (Schulz, 2001). Liao and Wang (2009) found that students loved to be corrected by their teachers in class more than teachers expected, while teachers loved peer correction for saving students’ face. Lightbown and Spada (2006) pointed out that teachers should care more about students’ feeling of being corrected in public and try not to reduce their motivation in learning. Peer correction and self correction are 19.

(34) reported to be less favored by students (Satio, 1994). Students’ performances also affect their attitudes toward error correction. Brandl (1995) observed that students with better performance were more active in finding the answers by themselves. Instead of passively receiving the correction, they preferred self correction. On the contrary, students with lower performance tend to rely more on teachers (Omaggio, 1993).. 立. 政 治 大. The Suitable Time for Error Correction. ‧ 國. 學. Students and teachers hold different beliefs in the suitable time for error. ‧. correction. Teachers believe that it is not necessary to correct as long as the errors do. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. not hinder communication (Liao & Wang, 2009). They care more about students’. i n U. v. feeling, but students expect to be corrected immediately. Students’ expectation. Ch. engchi. originates from their fear for keeping errors as habits. They believe in behaviorism more than teachers (Davis, 2003). Although most students report their preferences for immediate correction, there are still some students disliking it because they do not like to be interrupted (Chung & Huang, 2009). Omaggio (1993) pointed out another criterion for error correction: the focus of the class. If the errors were not the main focus of the class, there was no immediate need for correction.. 20.

(35) The Proper Way of Error Correction. Collecting students’ errors and discussing them during a certain period of time in class are helpful to students. Teachers would decide which grammar point is important to students based on their experiences. Omaggio (1993) reported a kind of practices in which teachers collected errors and only discussed with the whole class at a certain period of time. In the rest part of learning, peer correction and self. 治 政 correction would function as main measures of correction. 大 This kind of error 立 ‧ 國. 學. correction would help students develop their autonomy in learning (Brog, 1998). What kind of error correction would be popular with students and teachers is. ‧. also noteworthy. Different ways of corrections are suggested in oral and writing. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. correction. In oral correction, Lyster and Ranta (1997) reported six ways for teachers:. i n U. v. recast, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction,. Ch. engchi. and repetition. Recast is to refine the statement with the correct usage. Clarification request is to ask the students to make themselves clear. Metalinguistic feedback is to help students generate the correct answers with hints. Elicitation is to repeat the statement with a skillful pause to help students fill in the correct answer. Explicit correction is to tell students directly that they are wrong and then give explanations and correction usages. Repetition is to repeat the statement with special highlight on the errors. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), recast was the most commonly 21.

(36) used but the most ineffective one. Clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition were better than recast and explicit correction. Carroll and Swain (1993) reported metalinguistic feedback functioned the best. In terms of writing correction, Satio (1994) presented six ways for teachers to give correction in writing: teacher correction, error identification, commentary, teacher-student conference, peer correction, and self correction. Teacher correction is to give explicit. 政 治 大. correction directly. Error identification is to let students find their own errors, like. 立. underlining. Commentary is to give comments directly. Teacher-student conference. ‧ 國. 學. is for the teacher to discuss with the student one by one and face to face. Peer. ‧. correction is for students to be corrected by other classmates, while self correction is. Nat. io. sit. y. for them to find out the errors and to correct by themselves. Among the six ways,. n. al. er. teacher correction and commentary are the most welcome, while peer correction and self correction are the least.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Students’ Expectation of Error Correction. Students feel cheated when their errors in writing are not corrected (Liao & Wang, 2009). Besides, they believe that being corrected in class is helpful to themselves and their peers (Liao & Wang, 2009). Students tend to face the complex that they try to avoid errors but errors still occur. It is important for teachers to 22.

(37) discuss the situation with students (Horwitz, 1988).. Rationale of the Present Study and the Research Questions. A lot of research has been done in exploring teachers’ and students’ beliefs (Brown, 2009; Brog, 1998; Davis, 2003; Kern, 1994; Liao & Wang, 2009; Schulz, 1996, 2001). This shows that teachers’ and students’ beliefs are important factors in. 治 政 language learning. Among all aspects of their beliefs, 大students and teachers may 立 ‧ 國. 學. present great discrepancies in grammar instruction and error correction (Brown, 2009; Shawn et al., 2009). It is definitely important to explore similarities and. ‧. differences between students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. correction.. i n U. v. Schulz (1996, 2001) tried to compare FL students’ and teachers’ beliefs in the. Ch. engchi. United States and Columbia. Liao and Wang (2009) conducted a similar study on comparing EFL senior high students’ and teachers’ beliefs in Taiwan. However, students’ beliefs tend to refine with the accumulation of their learning experiences (Brown, 2009; Davis, 2003). Meanwhile, teachers’ beliefs would vary with their personal teaching experiences (Johnson, 1994; Kagan, 1992). As a result, junior high school students and teachers might have different beliefs from their senior high school counterparts. Students and teachers with different backgrounds might also 23.

(38) possess different beliefs. Little research has been done to investigate similarities and differences between Taiwanese junior high school students’ and teachers’ beliefs. Since 2001, the MOE in Taiwan has advocated incorporating CLT into English teaching. After implementing CLT in English teaching for over a decade, did CLT trigger any change in students’ and teachers’ beliefs? Chung and Huang (2009) reported that although Taiwanese students’ beliefs were still exam-oriented, they. 政 治 大. showed a more positive attitude toward the communication-oriented style in English. 立. learning. Therefore, the present study aims at comparing students’ and teachers’. ‧ 國. 學. beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction to have insight into the influence. ‧. of the curricular reform in Taiwan. The reason for focusing only on beliefs instead of. Nat. io. sit. y. on practices is that in the present teaching context, the tight teaching schedules, the. er. heavy pressure of tests and large class scales make teaching practices unable to show. al. n. v i n obvious changes (Chung & C Huang, U was conducted in Great Taipei h e2009). h istudy n g cThe. Area, including Taipei City and New Taipei City, because it is commonly thought as the most well-developed area in Taiwan where new thinking is more likely to be accepted and put into practices. The purpose of the study is to find out similarities and differences between junior high school students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, to provide English teachers with a better understanding of their learners’ 24.

(39) beliefs, to avoid the possible conflicts which might take place due to the perception differences between teaching and learning, and to make their teaching fulfill students’ need more effectively. Here are the research questions: (1) What are similarities and differences between students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction? (2) What background factors may cause differences in teachers’ beliefs in. 政 治 大. grammar instruction and error correction?. 立. (3) What background factors may cause differences in students’ beliefs in. ‧ 國. 學. grammar instruction and error correction?. ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 25. i n U. v.

(40) 立. 政 治 大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 26. i n U. v.

(41) CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY. This chapter describes the methodology of the present study, including. 政 治 大. participants, instruments, procedures of collecting data, and data analysis.. 學. ‧ 國. 立. Participants. ‧. In order to compare students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and. sit. y. Nat. io. al. n. this study.. er. error correction, both teacher participants and student participants were involved in. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Sample Size and Sampling Strategies. The number of student and teacher participants involved in the study was the first task to fulfill. According to Light, Singer, and Willett (1990), if the researcher wants to conduct a two-group t-test and expect to reach statistical power .90 with medium effect size under the condition that the reliability of the instrument is .80, the minimal sample size should be 212. Therefore, the 27.

(42) present study tried to include at least 106 teacher participants and 106 student participants. However, while the return-ratio and the ratio of effective questionnaires would possibly affect the actual sample size, at least 216 teacher participants and 216 student participants should be invited if the assumed return-ratio and the ratio of effective questionnaires were both 70%. In order to fit the sampling strategies, the researcher prepared 240 copies for both teacher. 政 治 大. questionnaires and student questionnaires.. 立. The study was conducted in Great Taipei Area, including Taipei City and. ‧ 國. 學. New Taipei City. To evenly distribute student questionnaires, ten schools were. ‧. involved. Among them, five schools were in Taipei City and the others were in. Nat. io. sit. y. New Taipei City. In each junior high school, one class from each grade was. er. randomly chosen for covering participants from the three different grades. In. al. n. v i n C hparticipants filled out each class, 8 volunteer student e n g c h i U the questionnaires. In. order to avoid the interference of the gender factor, the numbers of each gender should be nearly equal. As a result, there were 4 male and 4 female student participants in each class. (See Table 3.1).. 28.

(43) Table 3.1 Sampling Strategies for Student Participants Student Participants (A). (B). (AxB). (C). (AxBxC). The. The Number. The Sum of. The Number. The Sum of. Number of. of the Classes. the Chosen. of the. the. the Schools. Chosen in. Classes. Participants in. Participants. Involved. Each School. 5. 1 (7th grade). District. Taipei City. Each Class 15. 4 (male). 60 (male). 4 (female). 60 (female). 4 (male). 60 (male). 4 (female). 60 (female). 1 (8th grade) 1 (9th grade) New Taipei City. 1 (7th grade). 5. 15. 1 (8th grade). 政 治 大. 1 (9th grade) 10. 立. 30. 120 (male). 學. 120 (female). ‧. ‧ 國. Total. For the teacher questionnaires, even though all the English teachers in the. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. same ten schools were invited to join the study, the number was still not enough. As. i n U. v. a result, it was necessary to involve more teacher participants from other schools. In. Ch. engchi. the same way, both male and female English teachers were included in the study to avoid the interference of the gender factor. Student and teacher questionnaires were distributed on May 16th, 2011 and were all retrieved on June 21st. There were 221 copies of student questionnaires retrieved. The return-ratio was 92%. Among them, 214 copies were effective, while 7 copies were ineffective. The ratio of effective questionnaires was 97%. On the other hand, there were only 144 copies of teacher questionnaires retrieved, including 29.

(44) 141 effective copies and 3 ineffective copies. The return-ratio of teacher questionnaires was 60%. The ration of effective questionnaire was 98%.. Student Participants. There were 214 student participants from ten different junior high schools in this study (See Table 3.2). Among them, 103 student participants (48.1%) were from. 治 政 Taipei City, while the other 111 (51.9%) were from大 New Taipei City. In terms of 立 ‧ 國. 學. gender, 107 participants (50.0%) were male and the other 107 (50.0%) were female. The numbers of the two genders were equal. Besides, student participants in. ‧. different grades were all involved in the study. There were 69 seventh graders. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. (32.2%), 71 eighth graders (33.2%), and 74 ninth graders (34.6%). The participants. i n U. v. in each grade were in the same quantity, and took nearly one third of the whole. Ch. engchi. population. Most of the student participants were born in Taiwan without any experience of studying or living abroad. Only 14 student participants (6.5%) had lived or studied in the countries where English was spoken as the local language; 7 student participants (3.3%) had lived or studied in the countries where other languages were spoken as the local languages. Those countries were Germany, Japan, China, and Vietnam. Moreover, the parents’ native languages of the student participants were almost Chinese. Only one student participant (0.5%) mentioned 30.

(45) that one of his parents’ native languages was English, while 5 student participants (2.3%) indicated that their parents’ native languages were other languages, like Korean and Vietnamese. For student participants’ English learning experiences, only 36 student participants (16.8%) have learned neither in a cram school nor from a personal tutor; 54 student participants (25.2%) went to cram school or hired a tutor to reinforce their school learning. Another 54 student participants (25.2%) went to. 政 治 大. cram school or hired a tutor for more advanced English lessons. 70 student. 立. participants (32.7%) indicated that they went to cram school or hired a tutor not only. ‧ 國. 學. to reinforce their school learning but to study more advanced English lessons.. ‧. Brown (2009) reported that students’ beliefs would vary with their learning. Nat. io. sit. y. experiences. As a result, the study tried to include students with various learning. er. experiences. By covering these different factors, the study tended to generally reflect. al. n. v i n C hbeliefs in grammarUinstruction and error correction. the junior high school students’ engchi. 31.

(46) Table 3.2 The Backgrounds of Student Participants Background. Areas. Category. Number. Percentage. Taipei City. 103. 48.1. New Taipei City. 111. 51.9. Total. 214. 100.0. Male. 107. 50.0. Female. 107. 50.0. Total. 214. 100.0. 7th Grade. Genders. 69. 32.2. th. 71. 33.2. th. 9 Grade. 74. 34.6. Total. 214. 100.0. Never lived or studied abroad. 193. 90.2. Ever lived or studied in English-speaking countries. 14. 6.5. 7. 3.3. 214. 100.0. 208. 97.2. 1. 0.5. 0. 0.0. 5. 2.3. 214. 100.0. 36. 16.8. 8 Grade Grades. One of the parents speaks English. io. Total. n. al. Never went to cram school or hired a tutor.. Ch. sit. Others. y. Both of the parents speak English. er. Languages. Both of the parents speak Chinese. Nat. Native. Total. ‧. Parents’. Ever lived or studied in other countries. 學. Experiences. ‧ 國. Personal. 立. 政 治 大. v ni. U i e h n c g Went to cram school or hired a tutor for advanced English lessons. 54. 25.2. 54. 25.2. Went to cram school or hired a tutor for both school and. 70. 32.7. 214. 100.0. Went to cram school or hired a tutor for school English lessons. Learning Experiences. advanced English lessons Total. Teacher Participants. There were 141 teacher participants from different junior high school in this study (See Table 3.3). 61 teacher participants (43.3%) were from Taipei City, and 32.

(47) the rest of them (56.7%) were from New Taipei City. The numbers of the two genders were quite unequal, 15 male (10.6%) and 126 female (89.4%). According to the government official data in 2009, there were 67 male English teachers and 590 female English teachers in Taipei City, and 84 male English teachers and 784 female English teachers in New Taipei City. Among the total 1,525 English teachers in Great Taipei Area, male English teachers were 151(9.9%), and female English. 政 治 大. teachers were 1,374 (90.1%). The ratio of the male and female English teachers in. 立. this study was very close to the one in the real population. Moreover, teacher. ‧ 國. 學. participants of different seniorities were involved in this study. Among them, 22. ‧. teacher participants (15.6%) had taught English for no more than 5 years; 46 teacher. Nat. io. sit. y. participants (32.6%) had taught English for 6 to 10 years; 40 teacher participants. er. (28.4%) had taught English for 11 to 20 years, and 33 teacher participants (23.4%). al. n. v i n had taught English for moreC than In terms of teacher participants’ language h 21 e nyears. gchi U learning backgrounds, Johnson (1994) reported that teachers’ formal language learning experiences had a great influence on their beliefs. Therefore, it is important to consider the education backgrounds of the teacher participants, including their major subjects, academic degrees and oversees learning experiences. In the study, 81 teacher participants (57.4%) had a bachelor’s degree; 13 teacher participants (9.2%) were studying for a master’s degree; 32 teacher participants (22.7%) got a master’s 33.

(48) degree in Taiwan, and 13 teacher participants (9.2%) got a master’s degree abroad. There were only two teacher participants (1.4%) studying for a doctor’s degree. None of the teacher participants had got a doctor’s degree. While most of them graduated from English department, 28 teacher participants (19.9%) graduated from education department. The other 12 teacher participants (8.5%) graduated from other departments, like adult and continuing education department, health promotion and. 政 治 大. health education department, business administration department, and marketing. 立. department. Meanwhile, most of the teacher participants had never lived or studied. ‧ 國. 學. abroad. Only 26 teacher participants (18.4%) had ever lived or studied in the. ‧. countries where English was spoken as the local language. Only 1 teacher. Nat. io. sit. y. participants (0.7%) had lived in Germany before. By covering these possible. er. background factors, the study tends to present a more general picture of the junior. al. n. v i n Cbeliefs high school English teachers’ instruction and error correction. h e ninggrammar chi U. 34.

(49) Table 3.3 The Backgrounds of Teacher Participants Background. Areas. Genders. Seniorities. Educational. Percentage. Taipei City. 61. 43.3. New Taipei City. 80. 56.7. Total. 141. 100.0. Male. 15. 10.6. Female. 126. 89.4. Total. 141. 100.0. Below 5 years. 22. 15.6. 6 to 10 years. 46. 32.6. 11 to 20 years. 40. 28.4. Above 21 years. 33. 23.4. Total. 141. 100.0. Bachelor’s Degree. 81. 54.7. Studying for Master’s Degree. 13. 9.2. Master’s Degree in Taiwan. 32. 22.7. Master’s Degree in foreign countries. 13. 9.2. Studying for Doctor’s Degree. 2. 1.4. 0. 0.0. 0. 0.0. 0. 0.0. 政 治 大. ‧. Backgrounds. Number. 學. ‧ 國. 立. Category. Doctor’s Degree in Taiwan. y. Nat. Doctor’s Degree in foreign countries. sit. Others. 100.0. 101. 71.6. 28. 19.9. 12. 8.5. Total. 141. 100.0. Never lived or studied abroad. 114. 80.9. Personal. Ever lived or studied in English-speaking countries. 26. 18.4. Experiences. Ever lived or studied in other countries. 1. 0.7. Total. 141. 100.0. n. al. Majors. English Department. C hEducation DepartmentU e n gOthers chi. er. 141. io. Total. v ni. Instruments. Teacher questionnaire and student questionnaire were two main measures to. 35.

(50) collect data in this study. Both questionnaires were adapted from Lai’s (2004) study and Liao and Wang’s (2009) study.. Student and Teacher Questionnaires. In the present study, the teacher questionnaire and student questionnaire followed the format of Lai’s (2004) and Liao and Wang’s (2009) questionnaires. Lai. 治 政 (2004) conducted a study on the high school English 大teachers’ beliefs in grammar 立 ‧ 國. 學. instruction in Taiwan. In her study, Lai tried to cover four aspects of grammar instruction, including the function of grammar instruction, the appropriate timing of. ‧. grammar instruction, the way to carry out grammar instruction, and the forms taught. sit. y. Nat. io. n. al. er. in the grammar instruction (Lai, 2004). Liao and Wang (2009) aimed to compare the. i n U. v. perception differences between the senior high school teachers and students in. Ch. engchi. grammar instruction and error correction (Liao & Wang, 2009). Liao and Wang (2009) modified the teacher questionnaires used in the study of Schulz (2001), rearranged question orders based on the data classification in Brog’s (1998) study, and translated the questions into Chinese. There were four sections in Liao and Wang’s (2009) teacher questionnaire: personal information, general beliefs in teaching EFL, beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, and teaching procedures. But there were only three parts in the student questionnaire: personal 36.

(51) information, general beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, and further suggestions (Liao & Wang, 2009). However, in order to make it easier to compare the teacher questionnaires with the student ones, both questionnaires were divided into three parts: personal information, beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, and further suggestions. Besides, modification was made on the questionnaires to fit the need of the present study. Because the native language of. 政 治 大. both teacher and student participants was Chinese, the two questionnaires were. 立. presented in Chinese. For reference, the English version of the two questionnaires. ‧ 國. 學. was also attached in this study.. ‧. Nat. io. sit. y. The Content of the Original Questionnaires. er. There were two kinds of questionnaires used in the study: the student. al. n. v i n Cquestionnaire. questionnaire and the teacher Both questionnaires were divided into hengch i U three sections: personal information, beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, and further suggestions. Since the purpose of this study is to explore and to compare students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction, the format of the two questionnaires was designed to be the same with only slight differences in the personal information in the first part and the wording of the questions in the second and the third part. 37.

(52) In the personal information section, teacher participants were asked to provide information about their genders, ages, seniorities, academic degrees, majors, and overseas living and learning experiences. While student participants were asked to provide information about their genders, ages, grades, their parents’ native languages, overseas living and learning experiences, and experiences of going to cram school or being tutored.. 政 治 大. The section about beliefs was mainly designed to compare the differences. 立. between teacher and student participants. It was composed of two aspects: beliefs in. ‧ 國. 學. grammar instruction and beliefs in error correction. The four-point Likert scale was. ‧. used in both teacher and student questionnaires, showing “strongly agree,” “agree,”. Nat. io. sit. y. “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” Choosing “strongly agree” would get four. er. points which was the highest. As the points descended, choosing “strongly disagree”. al. n. v i n would only get one point. InC thehoriginal questionnaire, e n g c h i U there were nineteen. questions about grammar instruction and sixteen questions about error correction. The grammar instruction section was divided into four aspects: grammar and English learning, grammar rules, grammar terminologies, and grammar practices. On the other hand, the error correction section was divided into five aspects: error correction and English learning, the suitable corrector for error correction, the suitable time for error correction, the proper way of error correction, and the 38.

(53) students’ expectation of error correction. In this section, the questions in the teacher questionnaire and the student questionnaire were very similar, and the counterparts in the two questionnaires would be compared and contrasted in data analysis. The last section was an optional open-ended question for teacher and student participants to write down their further suggestions or other opinions about grammar instruction and error correction in English teaching for the reason that the questions. 政 治 大. in the questionnaires might not be able to let participants express their thinking. 立. completely.. Nat. al. Pre-implementation. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 學 Procedures. n. v i n Before distributing theCquestionnaires, h e n g c hit was i Uimportant to make sure the questionnaires could actually elicit data that the study needs. In order to fit the research purpose, the present study adapted the original questionnaires designed by Lai (2004) and Liao and Wang (2009). In order to establish expert validity of the two questionnaires, the researcher invited experts to give suggestions on the modification of both student and teacher questionnaires. With the suggestions given by these experts, the expert validity of both student and teacher questionnaires was 39.

數據

Table 3.1 Sampling Strategies for Student Participants
Table 3.2 The Backgrounds of Student Participants
Table 3.3 The Backgrounds of Teacher Participants
Table 3.6 Results of the Beliefs in Grammar Instruction (Continued)
+7

參考文獻

相關文件

teachers and were significantly better than boys; parents and teachers for junior high school students agree to use LINE attitude and be guided by real

The purpose of the study aims at discussing the important factors of affecting junior high school students in aboriginal areas in terms of learning mathematics.. The research

This purpose of study was to realize, as well as the factors of influence of information technology integrated in teaching by junior high school special education teachers in

This study was conducted to understand the latest situation between perception of principal‘s leading role and school effectiveness in junior high schools, and

It aims to understand the authentic English learning adjustment of junior high school students in remote area and to compare the difference between the family background and

The purpose of this study was to investigate the current situation of multicultural literacy and intercultural sensitivity of junior high school teachers in Taichung

The main purpose of this study is to explore the work enthusiasm of the Primary School Teachers, the attitude of the enthusiasm and the effect of the enthusiasm.. In this

The study is to explore the correlation between high-school students' ability to solve multiple problems in mathematics and creative thinking ability, whether there is a