臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討以轉換母語語法為基礎之教學法與傳統英語文法教學對台灣國中生學習英文文法之成效。並且，本實驗也研究母語及英語的語法差異性以及學生的程度是否會影響學生的學習成效。實驗對象為五十八名台灣的國三學生，並且隨機分為實驗組及對照組；本實驗持續六週。實驗結束後，兩組學生都施以後測(學校段考)以及文法成就測驗。最後，對實驗組學生施以一份問卷。實驗結果指出：一、以母語語法為基礎學習英語語法的實驗組在文法成就測驗和後測的文法部分之表現都顯著優於以傳統教學法學習文法的控制組。二、低成就者較高成就者更適合以轉換母語語法為基礎之教學法來學習文法。三、當學生學習母語及英語的語法愈相似時，成效愈好；反之，當母語及英語語法差異愈大時，學習成效愈差。四、多數學生都表示母語的協助有正面成效。本實驗在教學上的應用以及對未來研究之建議都呈現在結論裡。

The experimental study aimed to probe the effect of mother tongue grammar transformation (MTGT) method in contrast to traditional English structure instruction (TESI) on the learning of sentence structures by ninth graders in Taiwan. Besides, it also conducted whether the convergent sentence types between L1 and L2 or whether the students’ proficiency would affect students’ grammar learning. The participants were 58 ninth graders in junior high school in Taiwan. They were randomly assigned to either MTGT group or TESI group. The experiment lasted for six weeks. The posttest (the school monthly exam) and the structure achievement tests were administered to the students after the instruction. Finally, a questionnaire was distributed to the MTGT group. The results showed: (a) MTGT group significantly outperformed TESI group on all of the three structure achievement tests and the posttest, (b) low-achievers benefited significantly more from MTGT method than high-achievers, (c) the students learned significantly better when the sentence patterns were more similar between L1 and L2; on the contrary, they performed the worst when the sentence pattern was the most different between L1 and L2, (d) most MTGT group students confirmed the positive effects of the assistance of L1. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research were provided in the conclusion.

Table of Contents
Abstract (Chinese)...……………………………………………………………………i
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………..……ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...iii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………v
Figures ..……………………………………………………………………….vii
Tables ………………………………………………………………………..vii
CHAPTER1……………………………………………………………………………1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………1
Background of the Study……………………………………………………1
Rationale of the Study………………………………………………………5
Problem Statement………………………………………………………….7
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………..9
Research Questions…………………………………………………………9
Significance of the Study……………………………………...…………..10
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………..10
CHAPTER2………………………………………………………………………..…13
Literature Review ...…………………………………………………………….13
The Historical View of Grammar Instruction in SLA……………………..13
The Role of Mother Tongue in SLA……………………………………….17
Related Studies on the Effectiveness of L1 on L2 Acquisition……………26 CHAPTER3…………………………………………………………………………..30
Methodology……………………………………………………………………30
Participants…………………………………………………….…………..30
Instruments…………………………………...……………………………32
Procedure…………………………………………………….…………….39
Data Analysis………...…………………………………………………….44
CHAPTER4………………………………………………………………………..…46
Rusults………………………………………………………………………….46
Validity and Reliability…………………………………………………….46
Effects of MTGT and TESI Groups……………………………………….47
Effects of MTGT Method Between High- and Low-Achievers……….......52
Effects of Convergence vs. Divergence Between L1 and L2 on SLA…….54
Results of the Questionnaire………………………………………………57
Summary of the Major Findings………………………………………..…60
CHAPTER5………………………………………………………………………..…62
Discussion and Conclusion.…………………………………………………….62
Discussion and Conclusion.……………………………………………….62
Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………….66
Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………...67
Suggestions for Future Studies…………………………………………….68
References …………………………………………………………………………69
Appendix A ….………………………………………………………………………79
Appendix B ….………………………………………………………………………82
Appendix C ….………………………………………………………………………84
Appendix D ….………………………………………………………………………86
Appendix E ….………………………………………………………………………89





























Figures
Figure 1 Basic assumption of the MTGT………………….…………………….…24
Figure 2 The performance of high- and low-achievers between MTGT group and TESI group on the grammar part of the posttest…………………….…...54
Figure 3 Mean of the percentage on structure achievement tests by three levels of sentence type……………………………………………………………..57


Tables

Table 1 Components of Global Grammar………………………………..…….…25
Table 2 Taught Grammar Structures and the Target Grammar Structures
…………………………………………………………………………....32
Table 3 The Sentence Structure Column of the Passive Voice for the Control
Group……………………..………………………………………..……..35
Table 4 The Sentence Structure Column of the Wh-Noun Clause for the Control
Group……………………………………………………………………..36
Table 5 Each Section of the Posttest…………………………………………...…39
Table 6 The Mean Difference of the Pretest Between the Two Groups…………..48
Table 7 The Mean Difference of Non-grammar Part and Grammar Part on The
Pretest………………………………………………………………….…49
Table 8 The Mean Difference of the Posttest Between the Two Groups…………50
Table 9 The Mean Difference of Non-grammar Part and Grammar Part on The
Posttest………………...………………………………………………....51
Table 10 The Mean Difference of The Three Structure Achievement Tests…….…52
Table 11 The Mean of High- and Low-Achievers Between MTGT group and
TESI group on the Posttest……..………………………….……………..53
Table 12 Questions of the Three Levels in the First and Second Structure
Achievement Tests………………………………………………………..55
Table 13 Means of Correct-Answer Percentage on Structure Achievement Tests
in MTGT Group………………………………………………………….56
Table 14 One-way ANOVA on Structure Achievement Tests by Three Levels of
Sentence Type…………………………………………………………….56
Table 15 Tukey HSD Post-hoc Test on Structure Achievement Tests by Three
Levels of Sentence Types………………………………………………...56
Table 16 Descriptive Statistics of Perceptions toward MTGT Method………...….59

Al-Harbi, A. (2010). Mother tongue maintenance and second language sustenance: A two-way language teaching method. TESOL Journal, 2, 144-158.
Albert, M., &; Obler, L. (1978). The bilingual brain: Neuropsychological and neurolinguistic aspects of bilingualism. New York: Academic Press.
Al-Nofaie, H. (2001). The attitudes of teachers and students towards using Arabic in EFL classrooms in Saudi public schools: a case study. Novitas-Royal, 4 (1) , 64-95.
Andrews, S. J. (1999). Why do L2 teachers need to ‘know about language’?: Teacher metalinguistic awareness and input for learning. Language and Education, 13(3), 161-177.
Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32.
Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Third edition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baloch, S. S. (2013). L1 (Arabic) interference in Learning L2 (English): An Analysis of English Spelling Used by Arabic Speakers at Undergraduate Level-A Case Study. European Scientific Journal, 9(16), 226-232.
Ba&;ntilde;os, M. O. (2009). Mother tongue in the L2 classroom: a positive or negative tool? Revista Rindaraja, 21(4), Retrieved from www.realidadyficcion.es/revista_lindaraja/Mar%C3%ADa_Olivares/Mother_tongue.pdf
Beardsmore, H. B. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Tieto: Avon.
Benson, (2004). The importance of mother tongue-based schooling for educational quality. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005, The Quality Imperative.
Bhela, B. (1999). Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage. International Education Journal, 1(1), 22-31.
Bouangeune, S. (2009). Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low English proficiency level students: A case study at the University of Laos'. English Language Teaching Journal, 2 (3) , 186-193
Brooks, F., &; Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskian approaches tto understanding foreign language learner discourse during coommunicative tasks, Hispania, 77, 262-274.
Brown, H. D. ( 2000), Principles of Language learning and Teaching. (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley, Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principle: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once: The role of the mother tongue in EFL classrooms, Death of a Dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28, 29-39.
Cagri, T. M. (2013). The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 9-14.
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the Task-Based classroom. ELT Journal, 62 (4), 331-338.
Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and Thought. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Chang, S. H. (2004). A Comparative Analysis of two Approaches to Grammar Teaching: Constructive vs. lecturing. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, ROC.
Chang, Y. J. (2012). Effects on Grammar Consciousness-Raising on Taiwanese junior high school students’ leaning of the English relative clause construction. Unpublished master dissertation, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Chen, C. Y. (2000). Senior high school EFL teachers’ views on English grammar instruction. The Proceeding of the ninth International Symposium on English teaching, 188-197.
Chen, P. Y. (2006). The effect of exploration method on grammar learning. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, ROC.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy. Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. &; Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two. Oxford University Press: New York.
Ellis, R. ( 1984). Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford, NY: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S., &; L. Selinker (eds.) (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Halasa, N. H., &; Al-Manaseeer, M. (2012). The Use of the First Language in Second Language Learning Reconsidered. College Student Journal, 46(1), 71-81.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Hassanzadeh, N. (2011). The Effect of Awareness and Explicit Knowledge of Mother Tongue Grammar on the Learning of Foreign Language Grammar. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 1(2), 7-24.
Hassanzadeh, N., Shayegh, K., &; Hoseini, F. (2011). The Impact of Education and Awareness in Mother Tongue Grammar on Learning Foreign Language Writing Skill. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 1(3), 39-59.
Hopp, H. (2005). Constraining second language word order optionality: scrambling in advanced English—German and Japanese—German interlanguage. Second Language Research, 21(1), 34-71.
Hossein, S., &; Sandra, F. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Hsieh, W. J. (2008). Effects of task-based form-focused instruction Taiwanese junior high school students learninng the English relative construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Huang, H. C. (2007). A case study of using inductive grammar instruction in the English class. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Southern Taiwan University, ROC.
Huang, L. S. (2010). The potential influence of L1 (Chinese) on L2 (English) communication. ELT Journal, 64(2), 155-164.
Hussein, A. A., &; Mohammad, F. M. (2011). Negative L1 Impact on L2 Writing. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(18), 184-195.
Jadallah, M., &; Hasan F. (2011). A review of some new trends in using L1 in the EFL classroom. Al-Quds Open University.
Kavaliauskienė, C. (2009). Role of Mother Tongue in Learning English for Specific Purposes. ESP World, 1(22), 1-12.
Kavaliaoskienė, G. &; Kaminskienė, L. (2007). Translation as a learning tool in English for specific purposes. Kalbotyra, 57(3), 132-139.
Keeves, J. P., &; Darmawan, I. (2007). Issues in language learning. International Education Journal, 8(2), 16-26.
Kouck&;aacute;, A. (2007). The Role of Mother Tongue in English Language Teaching. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Paradubice, the Czech Republic.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. NY: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., &; Long, M. H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Research. London: Longman.
Lee, P. Y. (2005). A study of English grammar instruction in elementary schools in Taipei. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology. Taiwan.
Li, Y. C. (2001). Effects of the ‘Focus on form’ approach on EFL learning in an immersion program in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chinghua University of Education, ROC.
Liao, M. C., &; Wang, H. C. (2009). Perception differences of EFL teachers and students in grammar instruction and error correction. English Teaching &; Learning, 33(1), 101-145.
Lightbown, P. M., &; Spada, N. (1999). How Languages Are Learned. New York: Oxford.
Long, M. (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.
Long, M., &; 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. 15-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lott, D. (1983). Analysing and counteracting interference errors. ELT Journal, 37(3), 256-261.
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers’ perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 63-84). NewYork: Springer.
Mahmoud, A. (2006). Translation and foreign language reading comprehension: A neglected didactic procedure. English Teaching Forum, 44 (4) , 28-33
Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the Use of L1 in the English Language Classroom. Unpublished dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nassaji, H., &; Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nazary, M. (2008). The Role of L1 in L2 Acquisition: Attitudes of Iranian University Students. Novitas-Royal, 2(2), 138-153.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text Enhencement and Content Familiarity: the focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229-258.
Pan, Y. &; Pan, Y. (2010). The Use of L1 in the Foreign Language Classroom. Colombian Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 87-96.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. NY:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., &; Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. UK, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roehr, K. (2006). Metalinguistic knowledge and language-analytic ability in university-level L2 learners. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 51, 41-71.
Ross, N. J. (2000). Interference and Intervention: Using Translation in the EFL classroom. Modern English Teacher, 9(3), 61-66.
Scheffler, P. (2008). Rule difficulty and the usefulness of instruction. ELT Journal, 63(1), 5-12.
Schweers, W. J. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6–9.
Selinker, L. (1971). The psychologically relevant data of second language learning. In P. Pimsleur &; T. Quinn (Eds.), The Psychology of Second Language Learning. Cambridge University Press, London.
Shih, J. Y. (2008). Effects of inductive and deductive approaches in grammar instruction for junior high school students of differing English proficiency. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, ROC.
Sinha, A., Banerjee, N., Sinha, A., &; Shastri, R. K. (2009). Interference of the first language in the acquisition of second language. Journal of Psychology and Counseling, 1(7), 117-122.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 36-43.
Wu, C. M. (2003). A Study of the comparative effect of input-based grammar instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University, ROC.