大学英语不善学者学习策略实证地研究以山西财经大学为例Word文档格式.docx

1、Shanxi University of Finance & EconomicsThesis for Masters DegreeAn Empirical Study on English LearningStrategies ofCollege English Poor LearnersNameGaoJiaMajor Foreign Linguistics and Applied LinguisticsResearch OrientationSchoolTutorEnglish TeachingFaculty of Business Foreign LanguageLi Hong-liMay

2、 10, 2015学位论文原创性声明本人郑重声明：所呈交的学位论文，是本人在导师的指导下，独立进行研究工作所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品成果。对本文的研究所做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本人完全意识到本声明的法律结果由本人承担。学位论文作者签名：日期：年月日学位论文版权使用授权书本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保管、使用学位论文的规定，同意学校保留并向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权山西财经大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或

3、扫描等复制手段保存和汇编本学位论文。书。本学位论文属于保密，不保密。在（请在以上方框内打“”）年解密后适用本授权指导教师签名：AbstractAt the beginning of 1970s, a standstill of foreign language teaching methodologyresearch and the rapid development of cognitive psychology promoted the focus offoreign language teaching research turned from the study about how te

4、achers “teach” tothe study about how students “learn”. Under this background, a world-wide study offoreign language learning strategies began from then on. In 1984, a thesis named “Aninvestigation of learning strategies in oral communication that Chinese EFL learners inChina employ” was finished by

5、Chinese scholar Huang Xiaohua in The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong, it marked the study of English learning strategies started inChina. During the past 30 years, although numerous achievements have been got in thefield of learning strategies, there were few research achievements on the learningstra

6、tegies of college English poor learners. So, with the title of “An Empirical Study onLearning Strategies of College English Poor Learners”, the thesis chose 602non-English major students in Shanxi University of Finance and Economics as subjects,and used questionnaire survey method and interview meth

7、od to develop a series ofresearches. The Strategies Inventory for Language Learning （SILL）, which wasdesigned by Rebecca Oxford （1990）, was used as a research tool in the study. Firstly wecompared the similarities and differences on the using of learning strategies using levelof 146 English good lea

8、rners and 146 English poor learners with the help of the SPSSstatistical software, and explored the relationship between English scores of collegeentrance examination and learning strategies. Then we investigated 302 English poorlearners strategies using level, and added with the interview results o

9、f 30 English poorlearners who were chosen at random, we found the influencing factors to the Englishlearning strategies using level of college English poor learners, and put forward foursuggestions finally. The research conclusions and suggestions were as follows:1. Good English learners strategies

10、using level is much higher than poor learners.A comparison results of strategies using level between English good learners andpoor learners showed that English good learners using level on memory strategies,cognitive strategies, meta-cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, affectivestrategies

11、, social strategies and total strategies are all much higher than English goodlearners, and the differences have the statistical significance.2. A significant correlation between English achievements and strategies can beshown.iThe test results on the correlation between English achievements of coll

12、egeentrance examination and English learning strategies showed that there are significantcorrelations between English achievements of college entrance examination andmemory strategies, cognitive strategies, meta-cognitive strategies, compensationstrategies, affective strategies, and social strategie

13、s. The degree of correlation betweenachievements and meta-cognitive strategies is the largest one among the six, and thecoefficient of correlation is 0.806.3. College English poor learners learning strategies using level is in general.According to the results of the survey, the means of learning str

14、ategies for collegeEnglish poor learners is only 2.67 points, and according to Oxfords explanation, thescore is in the framework of “general “, and tends to” usually dont use”. The using levelof six strategies can be arranged from high to low like this: compensation strategies（2.90） social strategie

15、s （2.73）cognitive strategies （2.68）memory strategies（2.66）meta-cognitive strategies （2.60）affective strategies （2.51）.4. College English Poor Learners learning strategies using range is wide.Although there is only one strategy that poor learners can often use in the 50concrete strategies, scores of

16、the other 49 strategies are all above 1.4, it means there isno one strategy that they never used. So, it can be seen that for college English poorlearners although the using level is in general, the using range is wide.5. Teachers are the important factors affecting college English poor learnersstra

17、tegies using level.From the results of investigations and interviews, we can see the reason causedcollege English poor learners lack of learning strategies consciousness is that someEnglish teachers are lack of strategies consciousness and the low using level of learningstrategies.6. The weakness on

18、 basic knowledge restricts college English poor learnersThe results of interviews and investigations showed that the weakness of basicknowledge restricts college English poor learners use to some certain strategies, theresults provides a valuable reference for the future strategies training research

19、 and howto arrange the order of training contents.Based on the research conclusions, the thesis put forward the following foursuggestions to the English teaching reform in Shanxi University of Finance andiiEconomics: 1.To construct a new mode of college English teaching, which is based onstrategies

20、training; 2.To strengthen teachers and students strategies consciousness andimprove their strategies using level; 3.To implement a different strategies training todifferent groups of college English poor learners; 4. To construct an internal andexternal training model for the college English poor le

21、arners.Key words: College English; English Poor Learners; English Good Learners;English Learning Strategies; Investigation Studyiii摘要20 世纪 70 年代初，随着外语教学法研究的停滞不前以及认知心理学的迅速发展，外语教学研究的重点也逐渐从研究教师如何“教”转向研究学生如何“学”。在此背景下，一场世界范围内的外语学习策略研究也从此拉开了帷幕。1984 年，我国学者黄小华在香港中文大学完成了以“An investigation of learning strateg

22、ies inoral communication that Chinese EFL learners in China employ”为题的硕士论文，标志着我国的英语学习策略研究由此开始。三十年来，尽管学者们已在英语学习策略研究领域中取得了丰硕的成绩，但有关大学英语不善学者学习策略的相关研究却鲜见。为此，本文以“大学英语不善学者学习策略的实证研究”为题，以山西财经大学的 602 名一年级非英语专业学生为调查对象，采用问卷调查法和访谈法展开了相关的研究。研究中以 Oxford 编制的语言学习策略调查表为调查工具，借助 SPSS 数据统计软件，首先考查了 146 名英语善学者和 146 名英语不善

23、学者策略使用的异同点，并就英语成绩与策略使用水平的相关性做了检验，随后测查了 302名英语不善学者的策略使用水平，并结合对随机抽取的 30 名大学英语不善学者的访谈研究结果，全面考查了英语不善学者的策略使用现状，并揭示出了影响其策略意识形成与策略使用水平的相关因素，研究结果表明：1. 善学者的策略使用水平远高于不善学者。英语善学者与不善学者策略使用水平的比较结果表明，善学者对记忆策略、认知策略、元认知策略、补偿策略、情感策略、社交策略，以及总策略的使用水平均要高于不善学者，且二者间的这种差异具有统计学意义。2. 英语成绩与策略使用水平呈显著正相关。高考英语成绩与英语学习策略使用水平的相关性检验

24、结果显示，成绩与记忆策略、认知策略、元认知策略、补偿策略、情感策略和社交策略均在.000 的水平上呈现出显著正相关，且相关程度最大的是元认知策略，相关系数为 0.806。3. 大学英语不善学者的策略使用水平一般。根据问卷调查研究的结果可知，不善学者策略使用的总水平仅为 2.67 分，根据 Oxford 对策略使用水平的解释，被试的策略使用水平为一般，且趋向于通常使用。此外，被试对六种策略的使用水平从高到低依次是补偿策略（2.90）社交策略（2.73）认知策略（2.68）记忆策略（2.66）元认知策略（2.60）情感策略（2.51）。iv4大学英语不善学者的策略使用范围较广。虽然在 50 个具体

25、的策略项目中，大学英语不善学者能够做到经常使用的只有1 项，但在其余的 49 个项目中，没有任何一项是他们从不使用的，这充分表明他们的策略使用范围较广。5. 教师是影响不善学者策略使用水平的重要因素。根据问卷调查及访谈结果可知，教师是影响不善学者策略使用水平的重要因素,具体表现为教师的策略意识及策略使用水平，均会影响不善学者策略意识的形成及策略的使用水平。6. 基础知识的薄弱制约了不善学者对部分策略的使用。根据问卷调查及访谈结果可知，基础知识的薄弱严重制约了不善学者对部分策略的使用。这一研究发现对日后英语不善学者学习策略培训的相关研究具有一定的参考价值。根据上述研究结论，本文对山西财经大学的大

26、学英语教学改革提出了四点建议：1.建构一个基于策略培训的大学英语教学模式；2.努力增强教师和学生的策略意识，并努力提高其策略使用水平；3.针对不同类型的不善学者实施有针对性的策略培训；4.为大学英语不善学者建构一个内外兼修的策略培训模式。关键词：大学英语；英语不善学者；英语善学者；英语学习策略；调查研究vContentsAbstract（English） .iAbstract （Chinese） .ivChapter One Introduction .11.1 Research background.11.2 Definition of college English poor learners.21.3 Research purpose and significance.21.3.1 Research purpose .21.3.2 Research significance .21.4 Organization of the thesis .2Chapter Two Literature Review.42.1 Definitions of language learning strategies .42.1.1 Research results of foreign scholars .42.1.2 Research results of domestic sc