隨著科技產品如智慧型手機及平板電腦的普及，電腦輔助溝通(CMC)近來逐漸盛行。為了解是否可能將CMC融入第二語言教學課堂，須先研究其對第二外語學習所帶來的影響。據此，本研究採取focus on form (FonF)教學的角度探究線上討論對於第二外語單字學習及文本理解的效果，並與個別習作互做比較。
本研究包含82位來自臺北市一所女校的受試者，分為實驗組(EG)和對照組(CG)，分別給予線上討論與個別習作的學習情境。在進行十次的學習之前，受試者先進行單字前測。每一次學習進行之後，受試者進行單字立即後測與該週文章的閱讀理解測驗，一週後進行單字延遲後測。
每週五十分鐘的學習由七分鐘的個別閱讀開始，之後研究者進行問題詢問，目的在於引導目標字彙的使用。在線上學習情境中，受試者透過線上論壇與組員討論問題；而在個別習作情境中，受試者自行寫下答案後再與他人交換答案卷。在兩組別中，受試者各花十分鐘回應針對同一目標單字的所有問題。
資料分析包括變異數分析(ANOVA)及歷時性資料變化分析。組內比較中，單字前後測上有顯著差異，顯示兩種學習情境皆有助於單字學習。針對單字後測平均分數做歷時性資料變化分析，則可見在總次數十次中，EG的表現等於或高於CG高達五次。若將EG受試者在多工的學習情形下所需負擔的高度認知負荷量納入考慮，可知EG受試者在單字學習上的表現已超乎期待，也因而可推測線上討論應能對單字學習帶來正向影響。同時，針對閱讀理解測驗的平均分數做歷時性資料變化分析，也可得知就本研究中所探討的三個閱讀面向(總體理解、局部理解與推論)而言，EG受試者表現優於CG受試者約七至九次，其中變異數分析組間比較的顯著差異也證明了線上討論對總體理解的正向學習效果。此學習效果可能來自於CMC營造了較為友善的環境，讓學習者能與其他組員分享看法，而引發意義協商。藉由互相交換訊息，學習者們能增進對文本的理解。
本研究探討了將線上討論做為FonF學習方法的可能性，並認為線上討論有助於單字學習與文本理解。同時，本研究也嘗試將歷時性資料變化分析做為分析研究資料的一種方法。

With the heavy use of technological gadgets such as smartphones or tablet computers, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been prevalent nowadays. To explore the possibility to involve CMC in L2 classrooms, it is necessary to investigate the effects it brings to L2 learning. This study adopts a FonF viewpoint to examine the effects of online discussion on L2 word form (WF) learning and text comprehension, compared with the effects of individual work.
The participants were 82 tenth graders in a girls’ high school in Taipei, divided into the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). The two groups were respectively allocated with the learning conditions of online discussion and individual work. Prior to the ten-time intervention, a word form (WF) pretest was conducted. Each time after the intervention, the participants took a WF immediate posttest and a comprehension test based on the assigned reading, followed by a WF delayed posttest one week later.
The weekly fifty-minute intervention began with a seven-minute silent reading. Afterwards, some text-based questions were asked for the purpose of eliciting the target words. In the online discussion condition, the participants discussed the given questions with their group members through an online forum, while in the individual condition, the participants wrote down their answers to the questions and then exchanged the answer papers. In both groups, the series of questions focusing on one target word took ten minutes.
Data analysis included ANOVA and data variation analysis. ANOVA revealed significant differences in within-group comparisons of the collapsed mean scores of WF tests, indicating that both conditions facilitate the learning of word forms. The analysis of variations in diachronic mean scores of WF posttests shows EG performed not worse than CG for five out of ten times. Considering the heavier cognitive load resulting from dual-tasking of EG’s treatment, EG participants’ performance in word form learning actually exceeded expectations, thus implying that online discussion was more effective in helping word form learning when compared with individual work. Also, the analysis of diachronic data development in the mean scores of comprehension tests reveals EG’s better performance than CG for seven to nine times in the three types of comprehension (i.e. global, local comprehension and inferencing), among which global comprehension is found to benefit most from online discussion condition, as having been proved by the significant difference of between-group comparisons of the collapsed mean scores. The possible explanation is that CMC might elicit more negotiation of meanings since it creates a more friendly environment for learners to comfortably share ideas with other group members. By giving responses and reading others’, learners can develop a better understanding of the texts.
This study explores the possibility to involve online discussion as one option in FonF intervention, and suggests that online discussion might be able to facilitate learners’ word form learning and text comprehension. What’s more, this study provides an example to complete research results with analysis of diachronic data development.

Alcon, E. (2007). Incidental Focus on Form, Noticing and Vocabulary Learning in the EFL Classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 41-60.
Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Educational Technology. 41(6), E146-E149.
Birch, D., & Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: Engaging English second language (ESL) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 291-306.
Carico, K. M., & Logan, D. (2004). A generation in cyberspace: Engaging readers through online discussions. Language Arts, 81(4), 293-302.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. New York, NY: Routledge.
de la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263-295.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Dobinson, T. (2001). Do learners learn from classroom interaction and does the teacher have a role to play? Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 189-211.
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lesson. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449-491.
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 245-260
Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 689-696.
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Kabilan, M., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. (2010). Facebook: An Online Environment for Learning of English in Institutions of Higher Education? Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423-455.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (2003). Inviting students to talk about expository texts: A comparison of two discourse environments and their effects on comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(3), 1-30.
Lai, C. & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335.
Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds), Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on formS in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 149-166.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). New York, NY: Cambridge.
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, NY: Cambridge.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot., R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65(1), 63-88.
Nation, I. S. P., Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7): 9-13.
Nation, I. S. P. & Newton, J. (1993). Teaching vocabulary. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 238-254). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Vocabulary and reading and writing. In I. S. P. Nation (Ed.), Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L., & Scarcella, R. C. (1994). Second language vocabulary learning among adults: State of the art in vocabulary instruction. System, 22(2), 231-243.
Park, E. S. (2005). Constraints of implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-30.
Plonsky, L., & Loewen, S. (2013). Focus on form and vocabulary acquisition in the Spanish L2 classroom. Language, Interaction & Acquisition, 4(1), 1-24.
Pollster (2011年6月15日)。Pollster波仕特線上市調：86.7%受訪者有臉書帳號，其中13.5%有兩個以上的帳號。取自http://www.pollster.com.tw/Aboutlook/lookview_item.aspx?ms_sn=1460.
Promnitz-Hayashi, L. (2011). A Learning Success Story Using Facebook. Studies In Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 309-316.
Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the Roles of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading Comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 282.
Saeidi, M., Zaferanieh, E., & Shatery, H. (2012). On the effects of focus on form, focus on meaning, and focus on forms on learners' vocabulary learning in ESP context. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 72-79.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26-43.
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279.
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36-62.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp.99-118). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Toetenel, L. (2014). Social networking: a collaborative open educational resource. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(2), 149-162.
Tower, M., Latimer, S., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Social networking as a learning tool: Nursing students’ perception of efficacy. Nurse Education Today, 1-6.
Van den Branden, K. (2000). Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 426-443.
VanPatten, B. (2005). Process instruction. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 267-281). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428-438.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth Versus Breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139-155). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Zimmerman, C. (1997). Do Reading and Interactive Vocabulary Instruction Make a Difference? An Empirical Study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 121-140.
章佩玉(民101)。運用社會學習理論於Facebook學習社群進行知識分享之研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。
創市際(2012年12月12日)。ARO/MMX公佈2012年10月Media Metrix社群網站流量報告。取自http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_12_12_12.html.