104年第1學期-5100 個別指導 課程資訊
|weekly discussion of the research topic||40|
|a working bibliography||40|
|a draft of the proposal||20|
By the end of the course, students should-
1. have formulated a research topic;
2. have had a clear theoretical /research framework about the proposed topic;
3. have conducted thorough reviews of literature for the proposed topic;
4. have learned to synthesize the related reviews of literature;
5. have completed a draft of the proposal.
1. The instructor assists the student in formulating a research topic on the area the student is interested in.
2. The instructor assists the student in searching, assessing, summarizing, integrating, and synthesizing essential reviews of literature on the chosen topic.
3. The instructor assists the student in relating current research to prior related research.
4. The instructor assists the student in designing an appropriate research methodology for the topic.
5. Regular meeting time will be scheduled for the instructor to monitor the student’s progress.
Office HourDr. Henk Vynckier: Thursday, 8.10-10 am; LAN 211-B Dr. Mei-hui Liu: Tuesday & Thursday, 1-2 pm; FLLD Office # 17 Dr. Chia-Hui Chiu: Tuesday, 10-12 am; LAN 211 D
1. Norton Anthology of English Literature (2-volume edition) and other selected texts.
For Stephanie Cothran (G03120701)
1.Abbass, E., Davood, J., & Masoumeh, M. (2012). How do you react to the breakdown after it happens? Do you complain about it?: A contrastive study on the complaint behavior in American English and Persian. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(1), 34-40. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.609
2.Baba, J. (2010). Interlanguage pragmatics study of indirect complaint among Japanese ESL learners. Sino-US English Teaching, 7(12), 23-32. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED514807)
3.Boxer, D. (1996). Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis: The case of complaints. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, pp. 217-239. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
4.Chen, Y. S., Chen, C. Y. D., & Chang, M. H. (2011). American and Chinese complaints: Strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 253-275. Doi: 10.1515/iprg.2011.012
5.Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(2), 1-12.
6.Farahian, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2012). Does Direct Instruction Develop Pragmatic Competence? Teaching Refusals to EFL Learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 814-821.
7.Farrokhi, F., & Atashian, S. (2012). The Role of Refusal Instruction in Pragmatic Development. World Journal of Education, 2(4).
8.Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. New York: Routledge.
9.Jorda, M.P.S. (2003). Instructional effects on the use of request acts modification devices by EFL learners’. In A. M. Flor, E. U. Juan & A. F. Guerra (Ed