簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 吳昭玫
Chao-mei Wu
論文名稱： 輸入式教學法與輸出式教學法對英語假設語氣習得比較效應之研究
A Study of the Comparative Effect of Input-based Grammar Instruction and Output-based Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Subjunctive Mood
指導教授： 謝國平
Tse, Kwock-Ping
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2003
畢業學年度： 91
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 87
中文關鍵詞： 輸入式教學法 、輸入處理教學法 、英語假設語氣
英文關鍵詞： Input-based Instruction, Processing Instruction, Grammar Instruction
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：184  下載：21 
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

    • 傳統的文法教學都是以輸出式練習為主。 最近幾年來有些學者提出一種新式的輸入式文法
    教學， 這種教學法目的在藉由教導學生策略性的處理輸入來引導學習者建立一個特定句型
    及其所代表的意義之關係。本論文旨在研究這兩種教學法對英語假設語氣習得的比教效應
    。
    受試者是兩班程度相當的高一學生，一班接受輸出式教學，一班接受輸入式教學。他們在
    教學結束後立即接受第一次後測，一個月後接受第二次後測考試。兩次考試皆包含理解及
    填充造句測驗來評量這兩種教學法在理解力及輸出能力上的效應。
    T檢定結果顯示輸入式教學法對理解力有較好的效應，但輸出能力則是視題型的難易度而定
    。

    The present study aims to investigate the comparative effect of the traditional
    out-based instruction and the innovative input-based instruction. Processing
    instruction, proposed by Bill VanPatten, aims to direct learners’ processing
    of the input containing the target structure. Vanpatten and other proponents
    claim that it has better effect than traditional instruction on comprehension
    and almost equally good effect on production. However, some researchers argue
    that the effect might be affected by the complexity of the target structure
    and the difficulty of the tasks.
    The target structure of the present study was the English Subjunctive Mood,
    which is regarded as difficult both for comprehension and for production by
    most Chinese students. The subjects were two intact classes of the first
    graders of Yangming Senior High School. One class received tradition
    instruction and the other received processing instruction. An immediate
    posttest and a delayed posttest were used as means for assessing the effect of
    instruction. Both posttests consisted of two types of comprehension tasks and
    two types of production tasks.
    The results show that the processing group did do better than the traditional
    group in all of the comprehension tasks, suggesting better effects for
    processing instruction on comprehension. For the production task, the
    processing group did almost equally well in the blank-filling task, but their
    performance in the sentence-combining task was not satisfactory, suggesting
    that the effect really has something to do with the difficulty of the tasks.
    When the production task is difficult, output practice is still necessary for
    accurate production.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 General Introduction 1 1.2 Motivation 4 1.3 Research Questions 6 1.4 Organization of the Thesis 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7 2.1 The Role of Formal Instruction in SLA 7 2.2 Models of Second Language Acquisition 10 2.2.1 Behaviorism 11 2.2.2 Cognitive Theory 12 2.2.3 Ellis’ Model of L2 Acquisition 14 2.2.4 Vanpatten’s Input Processing Model 17 2.2.5 Swain’s Output Theory 18 2.3 Traditional Output-based Instruction 21 2.4 Input-based Processing Instruction 23 2.5 The Rationale of Processing Instruction 24 2.6 Studies on Processing Instruction 26 2.6.1 Studies Favoring Processing Instruction 27 2.6.2 Studies with Other Results 32 2.7 The English Subjunctive Mood 36 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 38 3.1 The Target Pattern 38 3.2 Subjects 40 3.3 Instructional Packets 41 3.3.1 Traditional output-based Instruction 42 3.3.2 Processing Input-based Instruction 44 3.4 Instructional Procedures 46 3.5 Posttests 48 3.6 Scoring Procedures and Data Collection 50 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 52 4.1 Results 52 4.1.1 The comprehension Task 52 4.1.2 The Production Task 55 4.2 Discussion 58 4.2.1 The Comprehension Task 58 4.2.2 The Production Task 60 4.2.3 The Goal of Grammar Instruction 66 4.2.4 Summary of the Findings 68 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION AND TEACHING IMPLICATIONS 69 5.1 Conclusion 69 5.2 Pedagogical Implications 70 5.3 Suggestions for Future Research 72 Bibliography 74 Appendix A A Lesson Plan for the Traditional Group 79 Appendix B A Lesson Plan for the Processing Instruction Group 81 Appendix C Samples of Activities for the Processing Instruction Group 83 Appendix D Samples of Activities for the traditional Instruction Group 85 Appendix E Samples of the Posttests 86

    Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review,
    89, 369-406.
    ---. (1987) Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions.
    Psychological Review, 94, 192-210.
    ---. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Bialystock, E. (1981). The role of linguistic knowledge in second language
    use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 31-45.
    Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An
    investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79,
    179-193.
    Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of Communicative Approaches
    to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
    Chen, C.Y. (2000). Senior high school EFL teachers’ views on English grammar
    instruction. The Proceedings of the ninth International Symposium on English
    teaching, 188-197.
    Chen, C. S. (2003). Acquisition of English Counterfactual Conditional
    Sentences by Chinese Speakers in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis, Arizona
    State University. ＜http://www.asu.edu/clas/English/linguistics/＞
    Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language, 35,
    26-58.
    DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of
    comprehension and production practice. Language learning, 46, 613-642.
    Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
    University Press.
    ---. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    ---. (1993). The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL
    Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
    ---. (1998). Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching. TESOL
    Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
    Fotos, S. and Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based
    approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-28.
    Kim, S. K. (2001) Structured input and production practice in foreign’second
    language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan,
    Tokyo.
    Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
    Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    ---. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood
    Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching.
    Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in
    communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,12,
    429-446.
    Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and
    instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (
    Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217-
    245).
    Long, M. (1983a). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review
    of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
    McLaughlin, B. (1978). The Monitor Model: Some methodological considerations.
    Language Learning 28, 309-32.
    ---. (1987). Theories of second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Edward
    Arnold.
    ---. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-28.
    Nagata, N. (1995). Production versus comprehension practice in second language
    acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of San Francisco.
    Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under
    different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-197.
    Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative
    language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In.
    S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 115-
    132). Prahbu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. New York: Oxford
    University Press.
    Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constrains on the teachability of
    languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
    Rutherford, W., & Sharwood S. M. (1986). Consciousness-raising and universal
    grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-281.
    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., & Frota, S (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a
    second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. Bewbury
    House, Rowley, Mass.
    Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.
    Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
    Sharwood, S. M. (1981). Consciousness raising and the second language learner.
    Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.
    ---. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies
    in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-180.
    Skehan, M. (1996). A framework for the implementation of Task-based instruction
    . Applied Linguistics, 17,38-62.
    Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input
    and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.)
    Input in second language acquisition (235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes
    they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
    16, 371-391.
    Tanaka, Y. (1996). The comprehension and acquisition of relative clauses by
    Japan high school students through formal instruction. Unpublished doctoral
    dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.
    Terrel, T. D. (1977). A Natural Approach to second language acquisition and
    learning. The Modern Language Journal, 61, 325-37.
    Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative
    approach. The Modern language journal, 75, 52-63.
    Vanpatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in
    Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-310.
    VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input
    processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
    ---. (1993b). Input processing and second language acquisition:: A role for
    instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
    Vanpatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1995). Explanation versus structured input in
    processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
    White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, P. (1991). Input enhancement and
    L2 question formation. Applied linguistics, 12, 416-432.
    Xu, J. A. (2001). Using processing instruction to teach Wh-questions in second
    EFL classes in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Tsing Hua
    University, Taiwan.
    Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In Gass, S. and
    Madden, C (eds.) Input in second language acquisition, pp.329-44. Newbury
    House, Rowley, Mass.

    QR CODE