1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 歸納及演繹法對台灣高職一年級英語學習者的學習成效:以翻譯學習上中英詞序不同的面相作為探討
The Effects of Inductive and Deductive Learning Among First-year Vocational High School Learners of English in Taiwan: A Study on the Word Order Differences Between Chinese and English from the Aspect of Translation
作者 詹迎婕
Chan, Ying-Chieh
貢獻者 張郇慧
Chang, Hsun-Huei
詹迎婕
Chan, Ying-Chieh
關鍵詞 歸納
演繹
教學法
中英詞序
Inductive
Deductive
Chinese-English word order
Instructional approach
日期 2021
上傳時間 2-Sep-2021 15:28:34 (UTC+8)
摘要 在台灣現行的108課綱中，最新改版的英文課本在句型文法的單元中融入了「歸納式」的學習方法，本研究的目標是要實證傳統「演繹式」及新編入的「歸納式」兩種學習法對於學生在英文文法概念的學習成效，進而檢視新版教科書的改變對於英語學習者是否有正面的幫助。為了避免選擇題型中比較會出現的測驗智巧(test-wiseness)的情形，本研究採用「中英翻譯」作為測驗英語學習者「中英詞序」文法概念的方式。本研究的實驗參與者是61位一年級高職學生，其中33位是接受「歸納式」的文法教學引導，而另外的28位則是接受傳統的「演繹式」文法教學。為了要觀察兩組不同教學法的受試者在翻譯表現上的差異，結果的分析是採用獨立樣本及成對樣本的t檢定。整體而言，研究的結果顯示在牽涉到中英詞序不同的句型翻譯表現上，傳統「演繹式」及新編入的「歸納式」兩種學習法的效果並沒有顯著差異。此外，本研究也將進而探討「學習者的語言能力」以及「中英詞序不同的樣態」對於兩種教學法成效的影響。
Under the newly-implemented curriculum, the instruction of grammar knowledge has involved inductive approach as a new teaching and learning method in the latest versions of English textbooks. This research aims to attest the effects of both deductive and inductive
instructions regarding the learning of grammar knowledge to figure out whether the change in the teaching reality has positive effect on EFL learners. To avoid test-wiseness in multiple tests, translation was adopted as the tests on learners’ grammar knowledge of Chinese-English word order differences. There were 61 first-year vocational high school participants involved with 33 receiving inductive instruction and 28 receiving deductive instruction. To observe the variance in translation performance among participants in the two groups, independent-sample and paired-sample test were applied for the analysis. On the whole, the results indicated that there was no significant difference of translation performance under the two
instructions. Participants’language proficiency and the types of Chinese-English word order differences were the two factors also discussed in details in this study to examine their interaction with the effect of the two instructional approaches.
參考文獻 References
Abdul-Ghafa, K. M. (2019). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and Achievement among EFL University Students in Yemen. Online Submission,3(3), 64-83.
Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Adults versus children in second-language learning: Psychological considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 48(7), 420-424.
Benitez-Correa, C., Gonzalez-Torres, P., and Vargas-Saritama, A. (2019). A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to High School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 225-236.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carroll, John B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chang, C. N., and Tsay, W. T. (2007). The common grammatical errors Taiwanese students often make in English research. The Journal of Educational Science, 7(1), 1-14.
Chen, M. C., and Shih, J. Y. (2008). Interaction Effects of Proficiency, Gender, and Task Complexity to Inductive and Deductive Approaches in Grammar Instruction. Journal of Applied Foreign Language, 10, 89-113
Darus, S., and Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of Form One Chinese students: A case study. European Journal of Social Science, 10(2), October 2009, 242-253
Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dagilienė, I. (2012). Translation as a learning method in English language teaching. Studies About Languages, (21). doi:10.25156/ptj.2017.7.3.15
Dipolog-Ubanan, G. (2016). L1 influence on writing in L2 among UCSI Chinese students: A case study. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(4), 1835-1847
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal,87(2), 242-260.
Fischer, R. A. (1979). The inductive-deductive controversy revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 63(3), 98-105.
Herron, C., and Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Kelly, T. L. (1939). The Selection of Upper and Lower Groups for the Validation of Test Items, Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 17-24
Lahuerta, A. C. (2018). Study of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/258971
Lally, C. G. (1998b). The implicit versus explicit division in language learning theory, method, and practice. Unterrichtspraxis, 31, 154-159.
Li, L. I. (1998). A comparison of word order in English and Chinese. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics, 34, 153-161.
Liu, H. M. (1979). A Comparative Study of the Word Order of English and Chinese with Special Reference to the Mirror-Image Phenomenon. Thesis. Fu-jen Catholic University.
Mallia, J. G. (2014). Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching English Grammar. Arab World English Journal, 5(2).
Mohammed, A. A., and Jaber, H. A. (2008). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Approaches of Teaching on Jordanian University Students’ Use of the Active and Passive Voice in English. College Student Journal, 42(2), 545-553.
Motha, H. (2013). The effect of deductive and inductive learning strategies on language acquisition. Unpublished master`s thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
Negahdaripour, S., and Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Spoken Accuracy and Fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.8
Pourmoradi, V., and Vahdat, S. (2016). The interactive relationship between inductive-deductive grammar teaching, gender and the cognitive style of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2151-2163.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
Sulaiman, S. (2012).The effectiveness of inductive and deductive approach in teaching adverbs of frequency among low achievers (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Timina, S. (2013). The problem of Chinese language interference in written English. The European Conference on Language Learning Official Conference Proceedings 2013. Retrieved October, 30 2015 from www.iafor.org.
Wang, L. Y. (2002). Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approach on EFL Learning Collocation Patterns by Using Concordancers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Taiwan: Yunlin.
Winitz, H. (1996). Grammaticality judgment as a function of explicit and implicit instruction in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 32-46.
Wu, H., and Garzar, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context-A study of error analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6), 1256- 1262. doi:https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.6.1256-1262
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., and Kim, H. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Zamani, A., and Mohammadi, F. A. (2014). A Comparison between Using an Inductive Strategy and a Deductive one in Grammar Instruction for Iranian EFL Learners. Enjoy Teaching Journal, 2(1), 90- 98
Zheng, C., and Park, Tae-Ja. (2013). An analysis of errors in English writing made by Chinese and Korean university students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 1342-1360. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.8.1342-1351
翁祥景(2002)。 “鏡相詞序”的講授對台灣國中學生中文英譯的影響。
國立政治大學英語教學碩士專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
103555002
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103555002
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 張郇慧zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chang, Hsun-Hueien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 詹迎婕zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chan, Ying-Chiehen_US
dc.creator (作者) 詹迎婕zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chan, Ying-Chiehen_US
dc.date (日期) 2021en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2021 15:28:34 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Sep-2021 15:28:34 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2021 15:28:34 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0103555002en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136814-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 103555002zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在台灣現行的108課綱中，最新改版的英文課本在句型文法的單元中融入了「歸納式」的學習方法，本研究的目標是要實證傳統「演繹式」及新編入的「歸納式」兩種學習法對於學生在英文文法概念的學習成效，進而檢視新版教科書的改變對於英語學習者是否有正面的幫助。為了避免選擇題型中比較會出現的測驗智巧(test-wiseness)的情形，本研究採用「中英翻譯」作為測驗英語學習者「中英詞序」文法概念的方式。本研究的實驗參與者是61位一年級高職學生，其中33位是接受「歸納式」的文法教學引導，而另外的28位則是接受傳統的「演繹式」文法教學。為了要觀察兩組不同教學法的受試者在翻譯表現上的差異，結果的分析是採用獨立樣本及成對樣本的t檢定。整體而言，研究的結果顯示在牽涉到中英詞序不同的句型翻譯表現上，傳統「演繹式」及新編入的「歸納式」兩種學習法的效果並沒有顯著差異。此外，本研究也將進而探討「學習者的語言能力」以及「中英詞序不同的樣態」對於兩種教學法成效的影響。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Under the newly-implemented curriculum, the instruction of grammar knowledge has involved inductive approach as a new teaching and learning method in the latest versions of English textbooks. This research aims to attest the effects of both deductive and inductive
instructions regarding the learning of grammar knowledge to figure out whether the change in the teaching reality has positive effect on EFL learners. To avoid test-wiseness in multiple tests, translation was adopted as the tests on learners’ grammar knowledge of Chinese-English word order differences. There were 61 first-year vocational high school participants involved with 33 receiving inductive instruction and 28 receiving deductive instruction. To observe the variance in translation performance among participants in the two groups, independent-sample and paired-sample test were applied for the analysis. On the whole, the results indicated that there was no significant difference of translation performance under the two
instructions. Participants’language proficiency and the types of Chinese-English word order differences were the two factors also discussed in details in this study to examine their interaction with the effect of the two instructional approaches.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Chinese Abstract x
English Abstract xi
Chapter I. Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Purpose of Research 5
1.3 Organization 6
Chapter II. Literature Review 7
2.1 The distinction between inductive and deductive learning approach 7
2.2 Factors that might interact with the effectiveness of the two approaches 10
2.3 Translation as an Assessment in Language Learning 14
2.3.1Common English Writing Errors Made by EFL Learners 15
2.3.2 L1 Interference in EFL Learning 16
2.4 The Differences in Word Order between Chinese and English 17
2.4.1 Modifiers of nouns 18
2.4.2 Modifiers of verbs 19
2.4.3 Existential sentences 20
2.4.4 Passive sentences 21
2.5 Summary of literature review 21
2.6 Research questions 23
Chapter III. Methodology 25
3.1Participants 26
3.2 Material 26
3.2.1 Teaching topic: grammar involving Chinese-English word order differences 27
3.2.2 Handout Design 29
3.2.3 Students’ translation reflection report 29
3.3 Testing 30
3.3.1 Pre-test 30
3.3.2 Formative tests 32
3.3.3 Post-test 32
3.4 Procedure 32
3.5 Data Analysis 35
Chapter IV. Research Results 38
4.1 The test results of the two instructional groups in pre-test and post-test 38
4.2 The test results based on participants` English proficiency 39
4.2.1 The test results of students with high English proficiency 39
4.2.2 The test results of students with low English proficiency 41
4.3 The test results based on the types of Chinese-English word order differences 42
4.3.1 Chinese-English word order difference in sentential level 42
4.3.2 Chinese-English word order differences in phrasal level 44
4.4 Summary 52
Chapter V. Implications of Research Results 55
5.1 Overall translation performance of the two instructional groups 55
5.2 The relation between language proficiency and the two instructions 56
5.3 The relation between the complexity of grammatical structures and the two instructions 57
5.4 Pedagogical Implications 61
Chapter VI. Conclusion and Future Research 64
6.1 Conclusion for the research 64
6.2 Limitations and future research 66
References 68
Appendix A: Pre-test of the study 73
Appendix B: Handouts for deductive group 75
Appendix C: Handouts for Inductive group 81
Appendix D: Formative Test 87
Appendix E: Post-test of the study 93
Appendix F: Translation reflection report 94		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2296673 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103555002en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 歸納zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 演繹zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 教學法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中英詞序zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inductiveen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Deductiveen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Chinese-English word orderen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Instructional approachen_US
dc.title (題名) 歸納及演繹法對台灣高職一年級英語學習者的學習成效:以翻譯學習上中英詞序不同的面相作為探討zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Effects of Inductive and Deductive Learning Among First-year Vocational High School Learners of English in Taiwan: A Study on the Word Order Differences Between Chinese and English from the Aspect of Translationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) References
Abdul-Ghafa, K. M. (2019). The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and Achievement among EFL University Students in Yemen. Online Submission,3(3), 64-83.
Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Adults versus children in second-language learning: Psychological considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 48(7), 420-424.
Benitez-Correa, C., Gonzalez-Torres, P., and Vargas-Saritama, A. (2019). A Comparison between Deductive and Inductive Approaches for Teaching EFL Grammar to High School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 225-236.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carroll, John B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chang, C. N., and Tsay, W. T. (2007). The common grammatical errors Taiwanese students often make in English research. The Journal of Educational Science, 7(1), 1-14.
Chen, M. C., and Shih, J. Y. (2008). Interaction Effects of Proficiency, Gender, and Task Complexity to Inductive and Deductive Approaches in Grammar Instruction. Journal of Applied Foreign Language, 10, 89-113
Darus, S., and Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of Form One Chinese students: A case study. European Journal of Social Science, 10(2), October 2009, 242-253
Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dagilienė, I. (2012). Translation as a learning method in English language teaching. Studies About Languages, (21). doi:10.25156/ptj.2017.7.3.15
Dipolog-Ubanan, G. (2016). L1 influence on writing in L2 among UCSI Chinese students: A case study. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(4), 1835-1847
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal,87(2), 242-260.
Fischer, R. A. (1979). The inductive-deductive controversy revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 63(3), 98-105.
Herron, C., and Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Kelly, T. L. (1939). The Selection of Upper and Lower Groups for the Validation of Test Items, Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 17-24
Lahuerta, A. C. (2018). Study of accuracy and grammatical complexity in EFL writing. International Journal of English Studies, 18(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/1/258971
Lally, C. G. (1998b). The implicit versus explicit division in language learning theory, method, and practice. Unterrichtspraxis, 31, 154-159.
Li, L. I. (1998). A comparison of word order in English and Chinese. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics, 34, 153-161.
Liu, H. M. (1979). A Comparative Study of the Word Order of English and Chinese with Special Reference to the Mirror-Image Phenomenon. Thesis. Fu-jen Catholic University.
Mallia, J. G. (2014). Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching English Grammar. Arab World English Journal, 5(2).
Mohammed, A. A., and Jaber, H. A. (2008). The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Approaches of Teaching on Jordanian University Students’ Use of the Active and Passive Voice in English. College Student Journal, 42(2), 545-553.
Motha, H. (2013). The effect of deductive and inductive learning strategies on language acquisition. Unpublished master`s thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
Negahdaripour, S., and Amirghassemi, A. (2016). The effect of deductive vs. inductive grammar instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Spoken Accuracy and Fluency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 8-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.1p.8
Pourmoradi, V., and Vahdat, S. (2016). The interactive relationship between inductive-deductive grammar teaching, gender and the cognitive style of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2151-2163.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
Sulaiman, S. (2012).The effectiveness of inductive and deductive approach in teaching adverbs of frequency among low achievers (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Timina, S. (2013). The problem of Chinese language interference in written English. The European Conference on Language Learning Official Conference Proceedings 2013. Retrieved October, 30 2015 from www.iafor.org.
Wang, L. Y. (2002). Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approach on EFL Learning Collocation Patterns by Using Concordancers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Taiwan: Yunlin.
Winitz, H. (1996). Grammaticality judgment as a function of explicit and implicit instruction in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 32-46.
Wu, H., and Garzar, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context-A study of error analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6), 1256- 1262. doi:https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.6.1256-1262
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., and Kim, H. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Zamani, A., and Mohammadi, F. A. (2014). A Comparison between Using an Inductive Strategy and a Deductive one in Grammar Instruction for Iranian EFL Learners. Enjoy Teaching Journal, 2(1), 90- 98
Zheng, C., and Park, Tae-Ja. (2013). An analysis of errors in English writing made by Chinese and Korean university students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 1342-1360. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.8.1342-1351
翁祥景(2002)。 “鏡相詞序”的講授對台灣國中學生中文英譯的影響。
國立政治大學英語教學碩士專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北。		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202101173en_US