学术听力构念研究

发布时间：2017-09-21 03:28

  本文关键词：学术听力构念研究

  更多相关文章： 学术听力构念 任务目标 任务要求 认知过程 语言能力

【摘要】：本文对基于能力与基于任务的听力构念研究方法进行了综述，采用质化量化相结合的研究方法验证学术听力构念框架（ALC）。该构念框架突出了任务与能力之间的交互性并论证认知过程可以被认作为体现学术听力能力的指标。 共收集了187份有效教师问卷与204份有效学生问卷，录入电脑，使用SPSS21.0进行主因子成分分析，并对从以上两组数据提取的主因子进行分析和比较，从教师角度和学生角度探究学术听力测试的任务要求。同时，从204个参与问卷调查的学生中抽取16位参与有声思维数据的收集，他们在听完一个小型学术讲座后完成基于讲座内容提纲的填空题，之后分段复述同一讲座。所有有声思维数据通过软件NVivo10.0进行誊录与编码，目的在于调查：1）考生的答题认知过程；2）任务目标与答题认知过程之间如何互动；3）不同能力考生在答题认知过程与复述过程中体现出来的差异。最后，对基于问卷因子分析的量化数据与基于有声思维及复述的质化分析数据进行相互印证。 研究结果表明：ALC构念框架是个高度交互的模型，任务目标对体现能力水平的考生认知过程有直接影响。教师与学生问卷数据均表明学术听力任务要求主要由宏观及微观语篇建构、笔记记录及语音识别这几项因子构成，，但几项因子的排序不尽相同。质化研究表明考生答题过程包括语音识别与选择性注意，意义与语篇建构及监控这几个认知过程。基于问卷调查数据的任务要求与基于有声思维数据的认知过程能够相互印证。不同能力考生在答题认知过程与复述过程中表现出来的差异主要体现在以下几个方面：语音模式的识别，关键词的捕捉，意义单位的联结，新信息与现存语篇表征的整合，语境语义连贯性的建构，证明认知过程可以被认作是学术听力能力的内在指标。以上发现能够帮助学术听力测试设计者更好地了解学术听力构念的本质，帮助教师开展更为有效的学术听力教学，帮助测试执行者加强学术听力测试使用的公平与公正性。
【关键词】：学术听力构念 任务目标 任务要求 认知过程 语言能力
【学位授予单位】：上海外国语大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：H319
【目录】：

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS4-6
• 中文摘要6-7
• ABSTRACT7-9
• LIST OF ACRONYMS9-10
• TABLES10-12
• FIGURES12-13
• TABLE OF CONTENTS13-18
• CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION18-29
• 1.1 The rationale of the current research18-25
• 1.1.1 Limited research in listening19-21
• 1.1.2 New challenges in academic listening research21-23
• 1.1.3 Gaps between requirement and reality23-24
• 1.1.4 Personal rationale24-25
• 1.2 Research focus and significance25-26
• 1.3 Structure of the dissertation26-28
• 1.4 Summary28-29
• CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW29-73
• 2.1 Nature of academic listening29-38
• 2.1.1 Discourse structure31-36
• 2.1.1.1 Macro structure of academic lectures31-33
• 2.1.1.2 Discourse signaling cues33-35
• 2.1.1.3 Cognitive perspective of discourse structure35-36
• 2.1.2 Note-taking36-38
• 2.2 Importance of investigating construct38-40
• 2.3 Approaches to investigating academic listening construct40-59
• 2.3.1 The competence-based construct41-55
• 2.3.1.1 The sub-skill approach42-43
• 2.3.1.2 The strategy approach43-47
• 2.3.1.3 The cognitive approach47-54
• 2.3.1.4 Bridging result-oriented and process-oriented approaches54-55
• 2.3.2 Task-based construct55-59
• 2.4 Academic listening assessment59-66
• 2.4.1 International academic listening assessments59-60
• 2.4.2 Local academic listening assessments60-66
• 2.4.2.1 Task characteristics of TEM 8 academic listening61-63
• 2.4.2.2 The test format of TEM 8 academic listening63-66
• 2.5 A proposed construct framework for academic listening66-72
• 2.6 Summary72-73
• CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS73-113
• 3.1 Research methodology73-80
• 3.1.1 Positivism to interpretivism73-76
• 3.1.2 Mixed methods research—triangulation76-80
• 3.2 Research questions80-82
• 3.3. Research design and data collection82-112
• 3.3.1 Participants82-89
• 3.3.2 Research instruments89-95
• 3.3.2.1 Elicitation instruments89-95
• 3.3.2.2 Technical instruments95
• 3.3.3 Research process95-112
• 3.3.3.1 Questionnaire survey collection95-96
• 3.3.3.2 Qualitative data collection96-112
• 3.4 Summary112-113
• CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS113-178
• 4.1 The questionnaire survey113-130
• 4.1.1 Descriptive statistics113-118
• 4.1.1.1 Teachers113-115
• 4.1.1.2 Students115-118
• 4.1.2 Exploratory factor analysis118-129
• 4.1.2.1 Teachers118-123
• 4.1.2.2 Students123-129
• 4.1.3 Summary129-130
• 4.2 The test-taking TAPs130-152
• 4.2.1 An overview of test-takers’ test-taking cognitive processes130-132
• 4.2.2 The test-taking cognitive operation model132-137
• 4.2.3 Interaction between the task and cognitive processes137-152
• 4.3 The retelling protocols152-173
• 4.3.1 Participants’ overall cognitive operations in Phase 2152-155
• 4.3.2 Consistency between Phase 1 and Phase 2155-164
• 4.3.3 Comparison between a high-achiever and a low-achiever164-173
• 4.4 Interview data173-176
• 4.5 Summary176-178
• CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION178-209
• 5.1 Task demands178-181
• 5.2 Task targets and cognitive processes181-185
• 5.2.1 Levels of processing181-182
• 5.2.2 Linking task targets, task demands and cognitive processes182-185
• 5.3 Triangulation of task demands and cognitive processes185-186
• 5.4 Localized ALC model186-192
• 5.4.1 Features of the localized ALC model187-188
• 5.4.2 Further elaboration on the localized ALC model188-192
• 5.4.2.1 Decoding and selective attention189-190
• 5.4.2.2 Meaning and discourse construction190-191
• 5.4.2.3 Monitoring process191
• 5.4.2.4 Test-wiseness strategies191-192
• 5.5 Discrepancy in cognitive behavior between competence levels192-201
• 5.5.2 Decoding193-194
• 5.5.3 Selective attention194-195
• 5.5.4 Meaning construction195-200
• 5.5.5 Discourse construction200-201
• 5.6 Other aspects201-207
• 5.6.1 Retelling as a measure to assess academic listening construct202-203
• 5.6.2 Parsing complicated sentences203-204
• 5.6.3 Schema204-205
• 5.6.4 Working memory205-207
• 5.7 Summary207-209
• CHAPTER SIX IMPLICATIONS209-222
• 6.1 Implications for assessing academic listening209-215
• 6.1.1 Task format209-210
• 6.1.2 Task targets210-214
• 6.1.3 Integration of task types214
• 6.1.4 Extent of topical knowledge214-215
• 6.2 Implications for pedagogy215-221
• 6.2.1 Selective attention215-217
• 6.2.2 Meaning construction217-218
• 6.2.3 Discourse structure construction218-220
• 6.2.4 Paraphrase220-221
• 6.3 Summary221-222
• CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION222-231
• 7.1 Verified ALC framework222-225
• 7.2 Answers to research questions225-227
• 7.3 Limitations of the current research227-229
• 7.3.1 The design of questionnaire228
• 7.3.2 Reliability and validity of the qualitative data228-229
• 7.3.3 Task type comparison229
• 7.4 Future development229-230
• 7.5 Summary230-231
• REFERENCES231-248
• APPENDIXES248-275

【参考文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前3条

1 蔡基刚;;“学术英语”课程需求分析和教学方法研究[J];外语教学理论与实践;2012年02期

2 程京艳;;英语听力教学的现状及发展趋势[J];外语界;2009年01期

3 JOHN SINCLAIR;PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS IN CORPUS LINGUISTICS[J];现代外语;2004年02期

本文编号：892121