《场依存场独立学习风格在英语输出准确性复杂性流利性方面的差异》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《场依存场独立学习风格在英语输出准确性复杂性流利性方面的差异（80页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、太原理工大学 硕士学位论文 场依存/场独立学习风格在英语输出准确性复杂性流利性方面的 姓名：王涛 申请学位级别：硕士 专业： 指导教师： 20100601 太原理工大学硕士学位论文太原理工大学硕士学位论文 v 场依存/场独立学习风格在英语输出准确性复杂性流利性方面的 差异 场依存/场独立学习风格在英语输出准确性复杂性流利性方面的 差异 摘摘 要要 个体差异已成为二语习得研究中的重要方面，近年来，场依存和场独立认知风格及 其对二语习得的影响被广泛研究。 准确性、 流利性和复杂性是衡量二语水平的三个方面。 许多学者认为语言不是静态不变的，而是动态变化的，在不同的语言环境中，语言使用 者的压力、自我
2、认同、目标以及情感因素都会对语言行为造成影响。本研究采用动态描 述的方法进行个案跟踪研究，结合对小组均值和个体变化的分析，试图对场依存和场独 立学生英语输出的准确性复杂性流利性方面的差异做较全面的描述。 本研究探讨以下三个问题： 1.场依存和场独立学生输出中的流利性、 准确性和复杂性的发展模式是什么？他们 的英语学习是否呈线性变化？ 2.流利性、 准确性和复杂性之间的关系怎样？一方面的发展是否会引起另一方面的 停滞或倒退？ 3.是否场独立学生在书面输出中表现较好， 而场依存学生在口语输出中表现较好？ 本研究主要有以下发现： 首先，语言系统是动态变化的，场依存和场独立学生学生英语输出中的流利性、
3、准 确性和复杂性的模式不是线性的。其次，语言水平的三方面，即流利性、准确性和复杂 性在输出中各自呈现独立地位，它们相互支撑又相互竞争。其中一方面的发展可能导致 另一方面的停滞。再者，在适应变化着的环境的过程中，场依存和场独立学生各自都表 现出变化性。学生的语言行为会受到自己语言策略的影响。第四，不仅是两种风格学生 遵循不同发展模式，即使是同一风格的学生相互之间的发展模式也大不相同。最后，总 体来说，场独立学生书面较好，场依存学生口语较好。若涉及到学习过程，两种风格学 生在英语学习与使用中表现出不同优势，在今后教学中应引起关注。 本研究的教学启示有以下几方面： 第一， 场依存和场独立学生英语学习
4、的过程是非线性的， 教师应当采用形成性评估， 注意学生在不同阶段的进步与退化，帮学生提高基础知识。第二，场依存和场独立两个 太原理工大学硕士学位论文太原理工大学硕士学位论文 vi 风格学生确实在二语习得过程中有不同的发展模式。教师应了解学生的认知风格，帮助 学生发展合适的学习策略，设计有效的任务型教学活动。第三，语言是社会性。教师平 时应注意学生的课堂表现，情感变化，学习态度及其他的环境因素，培养学生的学习兴 趣。最后，再一次要强调个体差异。教师要设计更多不同类型的任务型教学活动来帮助 不同风格的学生。设计教学大纲时要考虑学生的认知风格，使场依存和场独立学生从中 受益。 本研究也有许多不足之处
5、。本研究中的被试不是随机抽取的，且样本相对较小。试 验时间也不长， 研究不够全面， 没有对准确性、 流利性和复杂性三个方面进行一一比较。 但是希望本研究的结果能给语言教师和学习者以及今后的研究者一些启发。 关键词：关键词：认知风格，场依存，场独立，流利性，准确性，复杂性，发展模式 太原理工大学硕士学位论文太原理工大学硕士学位论文 i THE DIFFERENCES OF ACCURACY, COMPLEXITY, AND FLUENCY IN THE ORAL AND WRITTEN PRODUCTION OF FD/I STUDENTS ABSTRACT Individual differe
6、nces became an important aspect in the study of second language acquisition. Cognitive styles such as field-dependence and field-independence and their influences have been much explored in SLA in recent years. Accuracy, fluency and complexity are three dimensions to measure L2 performance. More and
7、 more researchers now agree on that language is not fixed but is a dynamic system. Language is used for social action within a context of language use, where pressures, learners identities, goals and affective states will have a profound effect on language performance. The present study adopts a dyn
8、amic descriptive approach to carry out a case study, with the combination of analyses in group average and individual variations to investigate the fluency, accuracy and complexity in the written and oral productions of FD/FI students of English. In this study, there are three research questions add
9、ressed: (1)What are the developmental patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity in FD/FI students outputs and whether FD/FI students English learning is linearity? (2)What are the correlations among fluency, accuracy and complexity? Whether development in one dimension can cause stop or regressio
10、n in another dimension? (3) Is it true that FD students do better in written work and FI students in oral work if they are at the same level of English proficiency? The major findings of this study are presented as follows: Firstly, language is a dynamic system instead of a static and fixed one. The
11、 patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity emerging in both FD students and FI students are not 太原理工大学硕士学位论文太原理工大学硕士学位论文 ii linear. Secondly, the three dimensions to language proficiency, i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity, perform independently in written and oral productions. They are suppor
12、tive and competitive. The development in one dimension can cause anothers stop. Thirdly, both FD and FI students show variability in their own progress as the result of their adaptations to changing contexts. Students will be influenced by their use of language resources in the process of language p
13、erformances. Fourthly, not only FD and FI students follow different patterns in their language progress, but also members in a same group differ greatly between one and another in their productions. Finally, roughly speaking, FI students do better in written work and FD students in oral work when th
14、ey are at the same level of English proficiency. But when it comes to process, both styles have their own advantages in English learning and using. More attention should be paid in the future English teaching. The implications of the present study lie in the following aspects: Firstly, the developme
15、ntal patterns of FD and FI students English production are not linear; there should be more formative assessments used in the process of learning and teaching. Teachers should pay attention to individual progresses at different stages of learning and help the students enhance their underlying knowle
16、dge. Secondly, FD and FI students really take different developmental patterns in their second language learning. Teachers should know students cognitive styles and help students develop reasonable learning strategies and effective task-based activities. Thirdly, language is also a social resource. The teachers should have an eye on students classroom behavior, emot
