本論文旨在探討顯性教學對波蘭籍漢語學習者關聯詞語使用之影響，主要採文獻分析法和教學實驗研究法，探究在不同教學方式引導下，第二語言學習者使用關聯詞語的表現是否有所進步。顯性教學是將學生注意力導向目標語言結構的教學策略，獨立呈現目標結構，直接解釋規則 (cf. Scott, 1989; Terrell, 1991; Lichtman, 2013)。本論文以上述學者對傳統溝通式教學法的反思出發，循前人為顯性教學所訂定之操作型定義、教學原則、技巧和評量方式，結合羅青松 (2002) 和李紹林 (2005) 對寫作教學的看法及Silva (1993) 對第二語言寫作特性的研究，設計一教學實驗。實驗對象為22位波蘭某大學漢學系三年級的學生，教師使用相同的自編文章、不同的教學方式上課 (以顯性教學法教實驗組、隱性教學法教對照組)。受試者於教學前、後分別寫作一篇作文，由專業華語教師評分，接著再統計各項分數進行討論與分析。

研究結果顯示：(1) 實驗組在接受顯性教學後，「顯性銜接」得分和實驗前相比有顯著差異 (paired t-test，p=.028)；(2) 教學實驗後，實驗組和對照組在「顯性銜接」和「連貫與銜接」兩方面的得分皆有顯著差異 (t=.022; t=.028, <.05)； (3) 所有受試者的「顯性銜接」得分和「連貫與銜接」得分皆呈高度正相關 (r=.922，p=.000)。證明本論文所採用之顯性教學方式有助提升華語為第二語言學習者的關聯詞語使用和連貫與銜接之表現。

This thesis aims to study how explicit instruction affects Polish learners’ use of Chinese connectives. Explicit instruction is a direct and efficient instructional strategy in which learners’ attention is directed to target forms, grammar structures are presented saliently, and grammatical rules are explained directly (cf. Scott, 1989: Terrell, 1991; Lichtman, 2013). A pedagogical experiment was designed to explore the effectiveness of explicit instruction in connectives teaching. The subjects are 22 Polish university students majoring in Sinology. They were assigned to two groups, and taught by the same teacher but with explicit and implicit instruction separately. Subjects were asked to write a story both before and after the class. Their stories were graded by two professional CSL teachers.

Results show that: (1) The experiment group made a significant progress on their use of connectives after receiving explicit instruction (paired t-test, p=0.28). (2) There was a significant difference between the two groups’ scores on ‘connectives’ and ‘coherence and cohesion’ after the experiment (t=0.22; t=0.28, <.05). (3) Based on the performance of all participants, there is a high positive correlation between the scores on ‘connectives’ and ‘coherence and cohesion’ (r=.922, p=.000). The findings proved that explicit instruction is effective in improving learners’ skills on using connectives.

參考文獻

王力 (1987)。中國語法理論。台中：藍燈文化事業公司。
王文科、王智弘 (2007)。教育研究法。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
李泉 (2004)。論對外漢語教材的針對性。世界漢語教學，68 (2)，49-57。
李紹林 (2005)。漢語寫作實用修辭。北京：語文出版社。
邵敬敏 (主編) (2007)。現代漢語通論。上海：上海教育出版社。
吳曉春、楊忠、都平 (2011)。中介語語篇中的邏輯連接詞使用研究述評。北京交通大學學報，10 (1)，126-130。
胡鴻 (2007)。漢語常用關聯詞語學習手冊。北京：北京大學出版社。
胡壯麟 (1994)。語篇的銜接與連貫。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
祝秉耀 (1997)。寫作課的目的、內容和方法。載於李楊 (主編)，對外漢語教學課程研究。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
郝長留 (1983)。語段知識。北京：北京出版社。
陳福寶 (1998)。對外漢語語段寫作訓練簡論。漢語學習，108 (6)，47-49。
陸儉明、馬真 (1999)。現代漢語虛詞散論。北京：語文出版社。
盛炎 (1997)。語言教學原理。重慶：重慶出版社。
張寶林 (1998)。語段教學的回顧與展望。語言教學與研究，2，108-118。
黃國文 (1997)。語篇分析概要。湖南：湖南教育出版社。
彭利貞 (1997)。論中介語的語篇層次。第五屆國際漢語教學討論會論文選。北京：北京大學出版社。
楊貝 (2005)。中國英語學習者與本族語者並列連詞用法對比研究。載於楊惠中、桂詩春、楊士復 (編)，基於CLEC語料庫的中國學習者英語分析。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
楊石泉 (1984)。話語分析與對外漢語教學。語言教學與研究，3，68-76。
劉春光 (2010)。朝鮮族大學生漢語關聯詞運用情況調查分析。延邊大學 學報，43 (5)，111-117。
劉珣 (2002)。漢語作為第二語言教學簡論。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
潘璠、馮躍進 (2004)。非英語專業研究生寫作中連接詞用法的語料庫調查。現代外語，27 (2)，157-162。
趙燕皎 (1998)。走出語篇教學的盲區。載於趙金銘 (主編)，對外漢語教 學探討集 (311-314頁)。北京：北京大學出版社。
蔣祖康 (編著) (1999)。第二語言習得研究。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。
魯健驥 (2000)。外國人學漢語的篇章偏誤分析。第六屆國際漢語教學討論會論文選 (257-267頁)。北京：北京大學出版社。
羅青松 (2000)。外國人漢語學習過程中的迴避策略分析。第六屆國際漢語教學討論會論文選 (188-194頁)。北京：北京大學出版社。
羅青松 (2002)。對外漢語寫作教學研究。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
Almeida, J. (1984). The interplay of cohesion and coherence in native and non-native written academic discourse. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(5), 1263A.
Bae, Junhok. (2001). Cohesion and Coherence in Children’s Written English: Immersion and English-only Classes. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 51-88.
Bieber, Douglas. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle& Heinle.
Brown, H. D.(2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd Edition). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second-Language Skills: Theory and Practice. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Clachar, A. (2003). Paratactic conjunctions in creole speakers’ and ESL learners’ academic writing. World Englishes, 22(3), 271-289.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crewe, W. (1990). The Illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44(4), 316-325.
Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. New York: Basil Blacknell.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The Robustness of Critical Period Effects in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.
Ellis, R. (1993). The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of A Second Language: A Psychometric Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
Field, Y., & Lee M. O. Yip. (1992). A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28.
Ghasemi, M. (2013). An Investigation into the Use of Cohesive Devices in Second Language Writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1615-1623.
Granger, S., J. Lerot, & S. Tyson. (Eds.). (2003). Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Granger, S., & S. Tyson. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Halliday, M.A.K., & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K., & R. Hasan. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspect of language in a socio-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Housen, A. & M. Pierrard. (Eds.). Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon: Oxford.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Laufer, B., & N. Girasai. (2008). Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.
Lichtman, K. (2013). Developmental Comparisons of Implicit and Explicit Language Learning. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 93-108.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., & L. Orteha. (2001). Does Type of Instruction Make a Difference? Substantive Findings from a Meta-analytic Review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157-213.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit and Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(3), 219-235.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Renkema, J. (1993). Discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 25, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules Under Implicit, Incidental, Rule-Search, and Instructed Conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
Sahebkheir, F. & N. A. Aidinlou. (2014). The role of explicit instruction on using conjunctions in Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2), 121-126.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-45.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In J. H. Hulstijn and R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in Second Language Learning (pp.11-26). Special issue of AILA Review 11.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp.3-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, V. M. (1989). An Empirical Study of Explicit Teaching Strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 14-22.
Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instuction: Developments, Issues, and Directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blacknell.
Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 52-63.
Trondheim, L. (2004). Mister O. New York: NBM Publishing.`
VanPatten, B., & T. Cadierno. (1993a). Explicit Instruction and Input Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
VanPatten, B., & T. Cadierno. (1993b). Input Processing and Language Acquisition: A Role for Instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45-57.
Yarber, R. E. & A. J. Hoffman. (1996). Writing for College: A Practical Approach. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996.
Zamel, V. (1983). The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.

參考教材

陳賢純主編 (2005)。漢語強化教程・初級寫作。北京：北京語言大學 出版社。
國立台灣師範大學主編 (2008)。新版實用視聽華語。台北：正中書局。
鹿士義、王潔編 (2002)。漢語寫作教程。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
葉德明主編 (2007)。遠東生活華語。台北：遠東圖書公司。
趙洪琴、傅儀芳主編 (2000)。漢語寫作 (供二年級使用)。北京：北京 語言大學出版社。
劉珣主編 (2004)。新實用漢語課本。北京：北京語言大學出版社。

參考網頁

大學入學考試中心 http://www.ceec.edu.tw/
國家華語測驗推動工作委員會 http://www.sc-top.org.tw
漢語考試服務網 http://www.chinesetest.cn/index.do
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
CWT全民中檢 https://www.cwt.org.tw
ETS TOEFL 台灣托福資源中心 http://www.toefl.com.tw
TOEFL http://www.ets.org/toefl