Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorGonzalez-Bueno, Manuela
dc.contributor.advisorKingston, Neal
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jun
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-24T21:40:07Z
dc.date.available2014-09-24T21:40:07Z
dc.date.issued2013-12-31
dc.date.submitted2013
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dissertations.umi.com/ku:13120
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/15051
dc.description.abstractExtensive research on second language teaching has been conducted on teaching English, other European languages or Chinese as a second language, but no quantitative study exists comparing the effectiveness of Communicative Language Teaching Approach (CLT) with that of Grammar Translation Method (GT) at teaching Chinese as a foreign language (CFL). The present study fills this gap. The purpose of this study is to investigate quantitatively which method is more effective at teaching the ba-construction in Mandarin Chinese to American CFL learners, CLT or GT. Sixty American students from introductory Chinese course at the University of Georgia (UGA) were given the opportunity to sign up for one of two classes to learn about the ba-construction. During one of the classes, thirty students learned under GT approach; during the other class, the remaining thirty students learned under CLT approach. The students, prior to signing up, were not aware of the method that would be used in their course. All students were tested before and after the course on three linguistic measures: Oral Production, Translation, and Meta-linguistic Awareness based on the ba-construction, and were scored on both occasions. A group of thirty Chinese students were also tested on the three measures but post-tested only and classroom teaching was unnecessary. They were included as reference group, not a "typical" control group. One-Way ANCOVA was conducted in SPSS. Pretest scores were entered into data analysis as covariates to control for possible pre-existing differences among the participants. Findings of this study showed that GT is statistically more effective than CLT at developing translation skills regarding the ba-construction. But this study produced no evidence regarding the superiority of GT or CLT at developing oral production skills or raising meta-linguistic awareness regarding the ba-construction, though both methods did appear to be highly significantly effective from pretests to posttests. This study has rich pedagogical implications and suggests meaningful directions for future studies on CFL instruction.
dc.format.extent136 pages
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Kansas
dc.rightsThis item is protected by copyright and unless otherwise specified the copyright of this thesis/dissertation is held by the author.
dc.subjectPedagogy
dc.subjectInstructional design
dc.subjectForeign language instruction
dc.subjectBa-construction
dc.subjectCommunicative language teaching approach
dc.subjectGrammar translation method
dc.subjectMandarin Chinese
dc.subjectQuantitive study
dc.titleIs the Communicative Language Teaching Approach More Effective Than the Grammar Translation Method at Teaching the Ba-Construction in Mandarin Chinese to American Undergraduate Students?
dc.typeDissertation
dc.contributor.cmtememberGonzalez-Bueno, Manuela
dc.contributor.cmtememberKingston, Neal
dc.contributor.cmtememberMarkham, Paul
dc.contributor.cmtememberMcKnight, Phil
dc.contributor.cmtememberRice, Suzanne
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineCurriculum and Teaching
dc.thesis.degreeLevelPh.D.
kusw.bibid8086374
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record