簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 許晉安
Jin-An Xu
論文名稱： 輸入處理教學法對台灣中學生學習英語疑問句的成效探討
Using Processing Instruction to Teach Wh-questions in Secondary EFL Classes in Taiwan
指導教授： 卓江
John Truscott
口試委員:
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系
Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年： 2001
畢業學年度： 89
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 98
中文關鍵詞： 輸入處理教學法 、英語疑問句
外文關鍵詞： Processing Instruction, Wh-questions, VanPatten
相關次數： 點閱：2  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 文法教學在台灣中等學校的英語課室中仍然扮演相當吃重的角色，一般說來，文法結構的教授方式是以輸出導向為主，也就是說教學的焦點在於教師對於文法規則的解釋，以及藉由立即給予輸出練習企圖幫助學生內化此文法結構，此種輸出導向式的「傳統教學法」的問題在於忽略有意義的輸入在語言習得過程中的重要性。肇因於理解到「傳統教學法」的缺失，VanPatten創立了「輸入處理教學法」（Processing Instruction簡稱PI），經由教導學生策略性地處理輸入，並藉以成功習得某種文法結構，PI的內涵主要可分為三個部分：解釋文法結構、教導學生運用處理策略、以及給予學生有組織的處理輸入練習。本文旨在比較PI與「傳統教學法」的教學成效，並探討在台灣採行PI的潛力與可能性。
    三個班級共五十一位來自新竹市立香山中學國中部一年級的學生在民國八十九年四月到十一月間參與本研究，其中兩班為實驗組，分別接受PI與「傳統教學法」，筆者根據PI與「傳統教學法」不同的內涵，發展出兩套針對學習英語疑問句的一小時教案，另一班則為對照組，並不對此文法結構施予教學。此研究的資料蒐集是來自於教學前施予前測、教學後的第一次立即後測、及五個月後的第二次後測，在這三次的前、後測中皆包含有理解測驗與看圖造句測驗，並用以評量學生理解與輸出此文法結構的能力。學生在三次前、後測中的理解與造句原始成績及進步成績分別以「單因子變異數分析」檢驗是否達到顯著差異，若有顯著差異即以「雪費事後檢定」（Post-hoc Scheffe）作事後比較，除此之外，筆者也計算出Effect Size來比較兩種教學法的教學成效與強度。

    第一次立即後測的結果顯示PI組在理解測驗成績表現上與控制組有顯著差異，在造句測驗成績與控制組相較則是有顯著的進步；間隔五個月的第二次後測結果指出，PI組只有在造句測驗中與控制組相較有顯著的進步，PI組與傳統教學組在兩次後測中的所有事後比較皆沒有達到顯著差異。然而若以各組間的原始成績、進步成績、與Effect Size來作比較的話，PI組在第一次立即後測的理解與造句測驗與第二次後測的造句測驗中表現皆優於傳統教學組，上述的研究發現指出PI的教學成效至少可以與「傳統教學法」並駕齊驅，而且PI更有助於成功影響學習者的內在文法系統以利輸出。此次研究乃是首次將PI運用於EFL環境中教導學生學習英語疑問句並探討其成效，對於「輸入處理教學法」教學成效的完整了解有賴於後續針對PI作更深入的教學研究。

    Generally speaking, grammar instruction still occupies a substantial portion of class time in secondary EFL classes in Taiwan. The way the target grammatical structures are taught is mostly output-oriented, with a focus on rule explanations from the teachers followed by immediate output practice for students. Close examination shows that the traditional output-oriented instruction assigns no role to both meaning-bearing input, which is the source for language acquisition, and instruction on input processing strategies. Motivated by the theoretical inadequacies of the traditional instruction, VanPatten developed Processing Instruction (PI), which attempts to facilitate learners' acquisition of the target form by directing more of their attention to the processing of input. PI is composed of three components - explanations of the target form, instruction in processing strategies, and structured input activities. The present study compares the effects of PI and those of traditional instruction, and also explores the potential for adopting PI in Taiwan.
    This study was conducted from April to November, 2000. A total of 51 first-year junior high school students from three existing classes participated in the study. An experiment using a split-plot design was administered. The three classes were randomly assigned to three treatments: PI, traditional instruction, and no instruction. Two one-hour instructional packets, based on the different natures of PI and traditional instruction, were developed by the researcher. Students' performance on the target item, English wh-questions, was assessed by means of a pretest, an immediate posttest, and a five-month delayed posttest. Interpretation and production tasks were designed to assess students' ability to comprehend and produce wh-questions. The raw and gain scores in both tasks of the three tests were submitted to one-way ANOVAs. Post-hoc Scheffe tests were carried out and Effect Sizes (ES) were also calculated for later comparisons.

    The immediate posttest results indicated that the processing group performed significantly better than the control group on the interpretation task and made significant gains on the production task. In the five-month follow-up, processing group vs. control group in production gain scores was the only comparison generating a significant difference. No significance could be observed between the processing group and the traditional group in either task of the two posttests. However, taking mean raw/gain scores and ES into consideration, students under PI outperformed those receiving traditional instruction in both tasks in the immediate posttest. This effect for PI also persisted in the second posttest production task. The above findings are encouraging in two ways: PI could achieve at least the same effect as the traditional instruction; PI could be beneficial for successfully affecting learners' developing system necessary for output production. To conclude, further research is needed for a thorough understanding of the effects of Processing Instruction.

    摘 要…………………………………………………………………………………………i ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………v TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………vi CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………1 CHAPTER TWO - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………………………………5 Overview…………………………………………………………………………5 The Role of Input in Second Language Acquisition…………………………………………6 The General Model in Second Language Acquisition…………………………8 The Traditional Instruction……………………………………………………10 Input-oriented Instruction………………………………………………………15 The Nature of Processing Instruction…………………………………………17 Positive Findings for Processing Instruction……………………………………21 Negative Findings against Processing Instruction……………………………28 Research Showing Ambiguous Findings………………………………………32 Developmental Sequence of English Question Formation…………………………………33 Research Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………35 CHAPTER THREE - METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………37 Overview………………………………………………………………………37 Participants……………………………………………………………………38 Instructional Packets and Procedures…………………………………………39 Assessment Tasks and Data Collection Procedures……………………………42 Scoring Procedures……………………………………………………………45 Data Analysis Methods…………………………………………………………46 CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………48 Overview………………………………………………………………………48 Results…………………………………………………………………………48 Results on the Interpretation Tasks………………………………………49 Results on the Production Tasks…………………………………………52 Discussion of the Findings…………………………………………………………56 The Immediate Effect of Processing Instruction…………………………56 The Effect of Processing Instruction in Long-term Follow-up……………62 Response to Collentine's Doubt on the Effect of Processing Instruction…68 CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………70 Overview…………………………………………………………………………70 Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………70 Directions for Future Research…………………………………………………72 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………………74 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………75 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………76 APPENDIX A - Preliminary Test Tasks……………………………………………………80 APPENDIX B - Pretest……………………………………………………………………85 APPENDIX C - First Post-test……………………………………………………………88 APPENDIX D - Spontaneous Production Test……………………………………………91 APPENDIX E - Processing Instruction Packet……………………………………………92 APPENDIX F - Traditional Instruction Packet……………………………………………95 APPENDIX G - Raw Scores in 3 Interpretation Tasks……………………………………97 APPENDIX H - Raw Scores in 3 Production Tasks………………………………………98

    Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
    Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
    Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576-587.
    DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
    Ellis, N. (2000). Editor's statement. Language Learning, 50, xi-xiii.
    Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
    Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Krashen, S. D. (1987) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
    Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1988). The natural approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
    Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
    Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
    Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, J. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217-243.
    Richard-Amato, P.A. (1996) Making it happen. New York: Addison-Wesley.
    Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Rutherford, W., & Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
    Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
    Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
    Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
    Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239-256.
    Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-180.
    Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
    Spada, N, & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.
    Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.
    VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
    VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
    VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
    VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P.W. Lee, J. Mileham, and R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    無法下載圖示 全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)
    QR CODE