東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

The interaction between learning sty...

Lee, Kangsub.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The interaction between learning style and grammar instruction for Korean students of English as a Foreign Language.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The interaction between learning style and grammar instruction for Korean students of English as a Foreign Language./
作者:	Lee, Kangsub.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 1998,
面頁冊數:	245 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 60-08, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International60-08A.
標題:	Multicultural education. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9908617
ISBN:	9780599067615

The interaction between learning style and grammar instruction for Korean students of English as a Foreign Language.
Lee, Kangsub.

The interaction between learning style and grammar instruction for Korean students of English as a Foreign Language. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 1998 - 245 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 60-08, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Georgia, 1998.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

This study extended earlier studies regarding the effects of interactive small group grammar tasks as opposed to traditional teacher-fronted grammar lessons. In particular, it investigated the effects of individual learning styles on students' achievement via the two instructional methods. Eighty four Korean students with intermediate level of English proficiency were each administered a Korean version of the Learning Style Profile, a bettery which was developed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The students were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In the first cycle of a grammar treatment, one group received instruction in a particular grammatical construction via a teacher-fronted lesson. The second group received instruction in the same grammatical construction via an interactive grammar task. The nongrammar group performed typical communicative activities. In a second cycle of grammar treatment, the two experimental groups switched instructional methods and received instruction in a second target grammatical construction. All groups took three pre- and posttests on the target structures. Outcome measures included a grammaticality judgment test, a sentence combining test, and a measure of stimulated sentence production of the target features. In addition, at the conclusion of the interventions, participants completed a questionnaire which asked for general attitudes toward the instructional methods. A repeated-measures ANCOVA was used to investigate any overall advantage of one instructional method over the other. Separate McNemer tests for change scores on each outcome measure tested whether some students achieved greater gains or more positive attitudes under one method rather than the other. Aptitude by treatment interaction analyses examined the match or mismatch of learning styles with the two methods of grammar instruction. Discriminant analysis investigated whether differential superiority for one teaching method or the other was predicted by elements of learning style. Separate regressions were run to investigate whether the amount of verbal negotiations in the grammar task exercises predicted achievement on the language proficiency measures. Results based on comparisons of the proficiency gains produced by the grammar task treatment with the gains produced by the nongrammar treatment indicated that there was significant difference in favor of the grammar task activities. The results of the McNemer test for sentence combining tests showed that the number of superior grammar task learners was significantly greater than the number of superior grammar lesson learners. Learning style preferences were able to predict more than 70% of the participants with respect to which instructional method worked best for them. In addition, aptitude by treatment interaction analyses showed that visual learning style is best accommodated by traditional teacher-fronted grammar lessons. Finally, this study showed that number of negotiation did not predict learning from grammar task exercises. In sum, these findings indicate that formal grammar instruction is facilitated when there is a match between the instructional method and the learners' learning style.

ISBN: 9780599067615Subjects--Topical Terms:

526718
Multicultural education.
Subjects--Index Terms:

English as a foreign language

The interaction between learning style and grammar instruction for Korean students of English as a Foreign Language.
LDR:04661nmm a2200445 4500 001 2396474
005 20240611104258.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s1998 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9780599067615
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI9908617
035 $a AAI9908617
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Lee, Kangsub. $3 3766166
245 1 0 $a The interaction between learning style and grammar instruction for Korean students of English as a Foreign Language.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 1998
300 $a 245 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 60-08, Section: A.
500 $a Publisher info.: Dissertation/Thesis.
500 $a Advisor: Rubin, Donald L.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Georgia, 1998.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
506 $a This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.
520 $a This study extended earlier studies regarding the effects of interactive small group grammar tasks as opposed to traditional teacher-fronted grammar lessons. In particular, it investigated the effects of individual learning styles on students' achievement via the two instructional methods. Eighty four Korean students with intermediate level of English proficiency were each administered a Korean version of the Learning Style Profile, a bettery which was developed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The students were randomly assigned to one of three groups. In the first cycle of a grammar treatment, one group received instruction in a particular grammatical construction via a teacher-fronted lesson. The second group received instruction in the same grammatical construction via an interactive grammar task. The nongrammar group performed typical communicative activities. In a second cycle of grammar treatment, the two experimental groups switched instructional methods and received instruction in a second target grammatical construction. All groups took three pre- and posttests on the target structures. Outcome measures included a grammaticality judgment test, a sentence combining test, and a measure of stimulated sentence production of the target features. In addition, at the conclusion of the interventions, participants completed a questionnaire which asked for general attitudes toward the instructional methods. A repeated-measures ANCOVA was used to investigate any overall advantage of one instructional method over the other. Separate McNemer tests for change scores on each outcome measure tested whether some students achieved greater gains or more positive attitudes under one method rather than the other. Aptitude by treatment interaction analyses examined the match or mismatch of learning styles with the two methods of grammar instruction. Discriminant analysis investigated whether differential superiority for one teaching method or the other was predicted by elements of learning style. Separate regressions were run to investigate whether the amount of verbal negotiations in the grammar task exercises predicted achievement on the language proficiency measures. Results based on comparisons of the proficiency gains produced by the grammar task treatment with the gains produced by the nongrammar treatment indicated that there was significant difference in favor of the grammar task activities. The results of the McNemer test for sentence combining tests showed that the number of superior grammar task learners was significantly greater than the number of superior grammar lesson learners. Learning style preferences were able to predict more than 70% of the participants with respect to which instructional method worked best for them. In addition, aptitude by treatment interaction analyses showed that visual learning style is best accommodated by traditional teacher-fronted grammar lessons. Finally, this study showed that number of negotiation did not predict learning from grammar task exercises. In sum, these findings indicate that formal grammar instruction is facilitated when there is a match between the instructional method and the learners' learning style.
590 $a School code: 0077.
650 4 $a Multicultural education. $3 526718
650 4 $a Language arts. $3 532624
650 4 $a Educational psychology. $3 517650
650 4 $a Minority & ethnic groups. $3 3422415
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 516174
650 4 $a Ethnic studies. $2 bicssc $3 1556779
650 4 $a Bilingual education. $3 2122778
653 $a English as a foreign language
653 $a Grammar
653 $a Korean
653 $a Learning style
690 $a 0282
690 $a 0279
690 $a 0525
690 $a 0631
690 $a 0455
690 $a 0626
710 2 $a University of Georgia. $3 515076
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 60-08A.
790 $a 0077
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 1998
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=9908617