本研究旨在探究台灣學生對於溝通式教學（CLT）和傳統教法的觀點和喜好。研究重點有以下三項：第一、從學生的觀點來說，溝通式教學和傳統教法在國中小學英語課上使用的比例；第二、學生對此兩種英語教學方式的喜好程度。而最主要的焦點則在於影響學生喜歡這兩種教學方法的因素，以及這些因素能解釋不同喜好程度的能力。本研究點出下列三種因素：第一、社會因素，包括家長參與程度和師生關係；第二、情感因素，包括動機和焦慮程度；第三、個人因素，包括性別、英語閱讀習慣和學習風格。
來自四所不同國中，共有九班學生參與本研究。資料收集乃透過四種問卷：個人資料部份、動機問卷(Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Peng, 2002)、焦慮量表(Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986)和學習風格指標(Wintergerst, DeCapua, & Itzen, 2001)。首先，敘述統計用來彙總原始資料，呈現其趨勢，包括次數分配、百分比和算術平均數。接著計算相關係數以探索因數間的關連性。最後用多元迴歸分析來檢視自變數能預測依變數的程度。
簡言之，本研究的目的在於測試以下三個虛無假設：
1.在學生眼中，溝通式教學和傳統教法在國中小學英語課上被使用的比例並無差別。
2.學生對此兩種英語教學方式的喜好程度並無差別。
3.學生的喜好與社會因素、情感因素及個人因素之間皆不存在關聯性。
結果顯示以學生的觀點看來，不管是在國中或國小，使用傳統式教學活動的情況都較溝通式教學活動頻繁。此外，參與本研究的學生表示她們比較喜歡溝通式教學活動。至於自變數和依變數之間的關連性，結果顯現動機、師生關係、計畫導向－團體活動導向學習風格和學生對國小英語課上教學活動的認知頻率，與學生對兩種英語教學方式的喜歡程度有較強烈的相關。而多元迴歸分析的結果則發現，動機是唯一可同時預測學生分別對於這兩種英語教學方式喜歡程度的因子。
即使國中小學英語課仍偏傳統教法，學生還是比較喜歡溝通式教學。因此，英語教師可考慮調整其教學，從平均使用這兩種方式，轉為偏重溝通式教學。但更重要的是，如果學生缺乏動機，她們也不會喜歡任何一種教學方式。所以，老師應試著透過建立良好師生關係、尋求家長參與或鼓勵各種學習風格的方式，進而提升學生的學習動機。

The study aims to investigate Taiwan students’ perceptions of and likings for communicative language teaching (CLT) and the Chinese traditional approach. The proportion of CLT and the Chinese traditional approach in English classes of elementary schools and junior high schools, as perceived by students, and the students’ likings for the two teaching methods are examined in this study. The main focus is on factors that may influence the students’ different likings as well as the degree to which the identified influencing variables can explain the differences. Three types of variables are identified: social factors (including parental involvement and student-teacher relationship), affective variables (including motivation and anxiety), and personal attributes (including gender, reading habit, and learning styles).
Nine classes of students from four different junior high schools were invited to participate in the present study. Data collection was completed through the use of 4 questionnaires: a personal information section, a motivational questionnaire (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Peng, 2002), an anxiety scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986), and the Learning Styles Indicator (Wintergerst, DeCapua, & Itzen, 2001). First, descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, and means, were used to show tendencies in the data. The data were then analyzed by conducting correlation analysis to explore the association between variables. Lastly, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which these predictor variables (independent variables) can account for the variance of the criterion variables (dependent variables).
In a word, the goal of the present study is to test the null hypotheses listed below:
(1) There are no differences in the perceived proportion of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities and activities reflecting the Chinese traditional approach used in English classes of elementary and junior high schools.
(2) There are no differences in students’ liking for CLT activities and activities of the Chinese traditional approach.
(3) There is no association between students’ likings for the two teaching methods and social variables, affective factors, or personal attributes.
The results showed that in terms of perceived frequency, activities of the Chinese traditional approach were used more frequently than CLT activities in both elementary schools and junior high schools. In addition, participants in this study showed that they liked CLT activities slightly more than activities of the Chinese traditional approach. Regarding the association between students’ likings and independent variables, the results showed that motivation, student-teacher relationship, PO-GAO learning styles and students’ perceived frequency of activities in elementary schools had a stronger correlation with students’ likings. The findings of a multiple regression further indicated that motivation was the only shared predictor of students’ likings for both CLT activities and activities of Chinese traditional approach.
Although English classes in both elementary schools and junior high schools were still more structure-based, i.e. using more activities of Chinese traditional approach, students preferred CLT activities more. As a result, English teachers could consider modifying their teaching from a rather balanced use of both CLT and Chinese traditional approach to a more weighted use of CLT activities. But what is more important is that students would not like either the Chinese traditional approach or CLT until they have been motivated in learning English. Therefore, motivating students is crucial to the success of English learning and teaching. Teachers can try to better motivate students by establishing a good student-teacher relationship, seeking parents’ involvement, or encouraging a variety of learning styles.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………….i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..iv
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………..vii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………..viii
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..1
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………….3
Overview of English teaching in the Chinese context……………………………….…...3
The Chinese traditional approach…………………………………………….………….5
Communicative language teaching (CLT)……………………………………………….7
A comparison of English classes in elementary schools and junior high schools…….…9
Social variables…………………………………………………………………………10
Parental involvement…………………………………………………………..…..10
Student-teacher relationship…………………………………………………...…..13
Affective factors…………………………………………………………………………13
Motivation……………………………………………………………………...….13
Anxiety…………………………………………………………………………….15
Personal attributes………………………………………………………………….…..17
L2 Reading habit……………………………………………………………….….17
Gender……………………………………………………………………….…….17
Learning styles……………………………………………………………….……19
Methods………………………………………………………………………………..…….22
Participants…………………………………………………………………………..…22
Materials…………………………………………………………………………..……24
Personal information section....................................................................................24
Motivational questionnaire.......................................................................................26
Anxiety scale............................................................................................................27
Learning Styles Indicator………………………………………………………….28
Design and Procedures……………………………………………………………..…..29
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...…30
Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………..….33
Summary of the questionnaires………………………………………………...……….33
Personal information section....................................................................................33
Motivational questionnaire.......................................................................................49
Anxiety scale............................................................................................................50
Learning Styles Indicator…………………………………………………….……51
Reliability of the scales…………………………………………………………………52
Correlation…………………………………………………………………………...…54
Multiple regression…………………………………………………………………...…65
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..….76
Overview………………………………………………………………………………...76
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………....77
Directions for future research…………………………………………………….…….78
Research method…………………………………………………………………..78
Research variables……………………………………………………………..…..79
Research participants…………………………………………………………..…..80
Pedagogical implications.................................................................................................81
References...............................................................................................................................82
Appendix A: Personal information section..........................................................................90
Appendix B: Motivational questionnaire.............................................................................93
Appendix C: Anxiety scale (FLCAS)……………………………………………...……….94
Appendix D: Learning Styles Indicator (LSI)…………………………………………….95
Appendix E: Formal questionnaire 1...................................................................................96
Appendix F: Formal questionnaire 2.................................................................................100

References:
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle publishers.
Brantmeier, C. (2003). Beyond linguistic knowledge: Individual differences in second language reading. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 33-43.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Castro, O., & Peck, V. (2005). Learning styles and foreign language learning difficulties. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 401-409.
Chang, B. Y. (張寶燕) (1989). 英語教學中學生語文流利程度與其對教師態度之間的關係 [The relationship between students’ fluency in English and their attitudes towards the teacher in English teaching]. In S. M. Chang, D. S. D. Tseng, & B. C. Hwang (Eds.), A Collection of Papers Presented in the Sixth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.53-60). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chang, Y. F. (張玉芳) (2003). 檢視台灣當前的國小英語教育政策：以家長的意見評量 [An investigation of English education policy in elementary school level in Taiwan: A survey of parents’ opinions]. In I. R. Chen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Twelfth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.265-373). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chen, C. Y. (2000). Senior high school EFL teachers’ views on English grammar instruction. In T. L. Huang, J. Katchen, W. Y. Dai & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 188-197). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chen, T. Y., & Chang, G. B. Y. (2004). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and learning difficulties. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 279-289.
Cheng, C. C. (1982). Chinese varieties of English. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 125-140). Urbana : University of Illinois Press.
Chern, C. (2003). English language teaching in Taiwan today. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing politics and practices (pp. 427-437). Singapore :Eastern Universities Press.
DeCapua, A., & Wintergerst, A. C. (2005). Assessing and validating a learning styles instrument. System, 33, 1-16.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233-249.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 21-31.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 562-570.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle publishers.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle publishers.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195-209.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Hsu, H. Y., & Chan, Y. C. (2005). A study of 5th graders’ motivation to learn English. In Y. J. Chen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Forteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 360-368). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., & Zhang, D. A. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers’ perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 303-320.
Hung, C. H. (1997). Understanding the culture of EFL in Taiwan: The qualitative inquiry. In J. Katchen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.19-26). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2003). English language teaching in China: A bridge to the future. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing politics and practices (pp. 131-145). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1989). Language acquisition and language education: Extensions and applications. New York: Prentice Hall International.
Krashen, S. (1992). Under what conditions, if any, should formal grammar instruction take place? TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. (1994). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722-725.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language classroom. System, 32, 21-36.
McCarthey, S. J. (2005). English language learners’ writing practices and attidudes. Written Communication, 22, 36-75.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression & correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Ministry of Education in Taiwan. (2000). 國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要 [The Nine-year Joint Curricula plan language arts guidelines for elementary and junior high schools]. http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/EJE/EDU5147002/9CC/9CC.html?TYPE=1&UNITID=225&CATEGORYID=0&FILEID=124759&open
Mji, A., & Mbinda, Z. (2005). Exploring high school science students' perceptions of parental involvement in their education. Psychological Reports, 97, 325-336.
Newsom, J. Lecture 20: More on multiple regression. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/pa551/lectur20.htm
Pan, P. H., & Yeh, H. N. (2005). Evaluation of learning activities in junior high school English textbooks for Nine-year Integrated Curriculum. The proceedings of the 22nd conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp.234-248). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Peng, I. N. (2002). EFL motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school learners. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Penner, J. (1995). Change and conflict: Introduction of the communicative approach in China. TESL Canada Journal, 12, 1-17.
Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444-458.
Pica, T. (1997). Tradition and transition in English teaching methodology. In J. Katchen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.1-18). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Ran, A. (2001). Travelling on parallel tracks: Chinese parents and English teachers. Educational Research, 43, 311-328.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30, 85-105.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-111.
Reid, J. (1990). The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 323-338.
Reid, J. (1995). A study of gender differences in minimal responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 489-512.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125-141.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher-behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Sun, G., & Cheng, L. (2002). From context to curriculum: A case study of communicative language teaching in China. TESL Canada Journal, 19, 67-86.
Sung, H., & Padilla, A. M. (1998). Student motivation, parental attitudes, and involvement in the learning of Asian languages in elementary and secondary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 205-216.
Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle school´s and math groups: Parents´ involvement in children’s placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263-279.
Wang, H. C. (2005). An exploration of teaching beliefs, instructional preferences, and learning preferences. The Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (pp.299-317). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Wang, M. J. (2001). The cultural characteristics of Chinese students: A study of basic attitudes and approaches to their studies. RELC Journal, 32, 16-33.
Warden, C. A., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 535-547.
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument. System, 29, 385-403.
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Verna, M. A. (2002). An analysis of one learning styles instrument for language students. TESL Canada Journal, 20, 16-37.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston :Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Yang, B. Q. (楊寶乾). (1978). A report on the survey of English education in junior middle schools in Taiwan 1970-1971. 英語教學輔導卅年 [Supervising English education for thirty years]. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539-553.