臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近十年來，在語言教學的領域中，語言學家不斷爭議是否應該偏重語言知識或者偏重語言意義的學習。由於台灣的學生必須參加偏重語言知識的英語入學考試，所以許多老師仍然維持舊有的傳統式教學法，但是有些老師則願意嘗試新的、以語言意義為主的教學法。然而許多老師在採取新方法時，發現有無法培養學生的文法能力的缺憾，因此而退回舊式的傳統英語教學法。
溝通式英語教學已經推行有一段時間了，研究卻顯示有計畫和及時的「溝通結合形式注重模式」(communicative focus on form) 教學效果比單純的溝通式英語教學的效果來的好。所以，這份研究的目的在於發展這種注重語言知識又不忽略語言意義的文法教學法。此外，這份研究更檢視溝通結合形式注重模式與傳統式文法教學兩組參與對象對這兩種截然不同英語教學法的感受與體驗的成效。我們希冀這份研究可以對目前的文法教學有所貢獻，並引領英語教學朝向當下以語言意義為主的溝通式教學法。
這次實驗採用兩種不同教學法教授宜蘭縣某國中的八年級學生三種句型並檢驗其學習成效。四十五位實驗對象被隨機的分成兩組，一組接受溝通結合形式注重模式教學法，另一組則接受傳統式文法教學。在正式施行教學前一週學生接受文法測驗前測，相隔六週教學後，兩組同時接受同一份考卷的後測。後測過一個月後，再對學生施以延遲後測以觀察學生的記憶停滯現象，並比較測驗成果。所得的考卷分數皆用統計學中的T考驗來做各組間及各測驗間的比較。此外，為瞭解學生的學習感受與成效體驗，我們於教學之前後亦實施問卷調查。
實驗結果顯示，儘管兩組成績沒有顯著性差異，溝通結合形式注重模式之後測成績仍比傳統式文法教學組的成績高。延遲後測的成績更顯示兩組學生皆有記憶停滯現象。問卷方面，兩組學生都喜歡他們各自接受的教學法，其中傳統式文法教學組的學生能明顯的感受到學習成效；而溝通結合形式注重模式的學生不太確定這種教學法對他們是否有效，即使他們的成績表現斐然。
這份研究提供台灣國中英語教師另外一種文法教學方式：溝通結合形式注重模式。採取這種教學法的最大優點就是老師可以兼顧語言學習的正確性與流利度。上述研究發現更支持了: 溝通結合形式注重模式提供教師在配合英語教改推行溝通式英語教學法時的過渡性教學選擇。為完整瞭解此教學法之成效，研究者在此建議後續研究者可將溝通結合形式注重模式運用於其他語言能力或其他文法句型，做更深入的教學研究。

For decades, researchers argued over controversy between form-based and meaning-oriented instructions. Since students in Taiwan have to take part in form-oriented entrance examinations, some teachers maintain adopting traditional ways of teaching, while some are willing to try new and more meaning-based approaches. However, when adopting a meaning-oriented approach, many teachers failed to develop learners’ grammatical competence and thus went back to a traditional way of English teaching.
While communicative approaches have been greatly promoted in language teaching, research has suggested that planned and timely Communicative focus on form (FonF) can work better than the communicative language teaching (CLT). Therefore, the purpose of the study was to develop a grammar pedagogy which helps develop both accuracy and fluency. In addition, the study examined learner perceptions and perceived effects toward two diverse grammar teaching approaches: FonF vs. Traditional Grammar Instruction (TGI). I also hope to make contributions to the improvement of current grammar teaching and therefore, gearing English language teaching toward the mainstream, CLT.
The present study examines the effect of teaching three target structures to eighth graders in a junior high school in Yi-lan County, using two different instructional approaches. Forty five participants were randomly assigned to two groups, with one given FonF and the other, TGI. A grammaticality recognition test was conducted to the learners in each group one week before and immediately after a six-week period of instruction. One month after the posttest, the other delayed posttest was administered to examine the retention phenomenon between two groups. Beth test raw scores and gain scores, however, were analyzed by two sample t-test and paired t-test. In addition, to survey learner perceptions and perceived effects, questionnaires were given to two groups before and after the instruction as well.
Results showed that the total mean score in the FonF group outperformed those in the TGI group in the posttest, though statistically insignificant. As results in the delayed posttest suggested, the retention phenomenon existed in both groups. Findings also showed that both groups liked the approach they had experienced, within which most TGI participants perceived such a traditional way of grammar teaching effective. FonF participants, however, are uncertain if the approach is effective for them even though they performed better than TGI participants in the posttest.
The implication is that secondary EFL teachers in Taiwan are provided with an alternative: Communicative Focus on Form. The most salient advantage of adopting this approach is that teachers do not have to sacrifice accuracy for fluency anymore. Moreover, FonF may serve as a turning point while teachers are coping with English innovations toward a communicative approach. Further research, such as the investigation of the FonF effects on different language skills, and studies testing different target structures are needed for complete understanding of the effects of Communicative Focus on Form.

Page
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………... i
Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………... ii
English Abstract………………………………………………………………… iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….. v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. viii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………... x

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background and Motivation…………………………………………... 2
1.2 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………... 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………….. 5
1.4 Organization of the Study…………………………………………….. 6
II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………. 7
Overview………………………………………………………………….. 7
2.1 Language Practices……………………………………………………. 8
2.2 Form-based vs. Meaning-based Instruction…………………………... 8
2.2.1 Features of Focus on FormS (Form-based Instruction)…………. 9
2.2.2 Features of Focus on Meaning………………………………….. 10
2.2.3 Problems of the Two Language Practices………………………. 11
2.2.4 Possible Solution: Focus on Form………………………………. 12
2.3 Communicative Focus on Form: A Necessity in EFL Contexts………. 14
2.3.1 Operational Definition of Focus on Form………………………. 14
2.3.2 Theoretical Background of the Study: Based on CLT…………... 16
2.3.2.1 Communicative Competence…………………………... 16
2.3.2.2 Pedagogical Model of Communicative Competence…... 17
2.3.2.3 Features of Communicative Language Teaching………. 18
2.4 Rationales behind the Instructional Treatment Design……………….. 19
2.4.1 Lesson Plan Principles………………………………………….. 19
2.4.2 Techniques Adopted in the Study: Based on FonF……………… 21
2.5 Research Questions…………………………………………………… 28
III. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………….. 29
Overview………………………………………………………………….. 29
3.1 Research Design………………………………………………………. 29
3.2 Participants……………………………………………………………. 30
3.3 Instrumentation……………………………………………………….. 31
3.3.1 Target Structures………………………………………………… 31
3.3.2 Test Design……………………………………………………… 33
3.3.3 Questionnaires…………………………………………………... 35
3.3.3.1 Pre-teaching Survey……………………………………. 36
3.3.3.2 Post-teaching Questionnaire……………………………. 36
3.4 General Procedures…………………………………………………… 37
3.4.1 Instructional Treatments………………………………………… 37
3.4.2 Data Collection Procedures……………………………………... 38
3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………. 41
3.5.1 Methods of Analyzing Test Score………………………………. 41
3.5.2. Methods of Analyzing Questionnaire Data…………………….. 41
IV. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………. 43
4.1 Test Performances…………………………………………………….. 43
4.1.1 Pretest, Posttest, & Delayed Posttest Overall Performance…….. 43
4.1.2 Delayed Posttest Result: Retention Phenomenon………………. 44
4.1.3 Results of the First Target Structure…………………………….. 46
4.1.4 Results of the Second Target Structure…………………………. 49
4.1.5 Results of the Third Target Structure…………………………… 52
4.2 Questionnaires………………………………………………………… 55
4.2.1 Learner Attitudes toward English Learning…………………….. 55
4.2.2 Learner General Perceptions toward the Instruction…………… 59
4.2.3 Learner Perceived Effects……..………………………………... 64
V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………… 69
5.1 Discussion…………………………………………………………….. 69
5.1.1 Which approach is more effective in test performance? ……….. 69
5.1.2 Is there retention phenomenon? ................................................... 70
5.1.3 Which group perceived the grammar pedagogy interesting and effective? .....................................................................................
70
5.1.4 The Value of Communicative Focus on Form: Meeting Learner Needs……………………………………………………………
72
5.2 Implications…………………………………………………………… 73
5.2.1 We Need not Sacrifice Accuracy for Fluency…………………... 74
5.2.2 Communicative Focus on Form as a Turning Point for Implementing CLT……………………………………………...
74
5.2.3 Communicative Focus on Form as an Alternative to Traditional Grammar Instruction……………………………………………
75
5.2.4 Communicative Language Teaching as Guidelines; Focus on Form as Techniques……………………………………………..
76
5.3 Directions for Further Research………………………………………. 77
5.4 Final Thoughts………………………………………………………… 80

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………. 81
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………….. 88
Appendix A Pre-teaching Survey (Chinese)……………………………. 88
Appendix B Pre-teaching Survey (English)…………………………….. 91
Appendix C Test (Pretest/ Posttest/ Delayed Posttest)…….……………. 92
Appendix D Post-teaching Questionnaire (Chinese)……………………. 95
Appendix E Post-teaching Questionnaire (English)……………………. 97
Appendix F Weekly Lesson Plan……………………………………….. 99
Appendix G Design of the Research Study……………………………... 105
Appendix H Reliability Estimation for the Test Using Pearson Correlations………………………………………………...
106

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page


2.1 Main Characteristics of Form-based and Communication-Based Approach.………………………………………………………….....

8
2.2 Lesson Plan Principles of Communicative FonF in the Study……….
20
2.3 Techniques Applied in Communicative FonF Group………………...
27
3.1 Sources of Target Structures and Teaching Span…………………….
32
3.2 Item Distribution in Section One…………………………………….
33
3.3 Item Distribution in Section Two…………………………………….
34
3.4 Item Distribution in Section Three…………………………………...
35
3.5 Gagné’s Phases of Learning and the Instructional Events That
Support Learning at Each Phase……………………………………...

38
4.1 Comparison of Two Groups’ Pretest and Posttest Performances…………………………………………………………

44
4.2 Comparison of Two Groups’ Posttest and Delayed Posttest Performances…………………………………………………………

45
4.3 Comparison of Two Groups’ Pretest and Posttest Performances in the First Target Structure…………………...………………………...

47
4.4 Comparison of Two Groups’ Posttest and Delayed Posttest Performances in the First Target Structure…………………………...

48
4.5 Comparison of Two Groups’ Pretest and Posttest Performances in the Second Target Structure………………………………...………...

50
Table Page


4.6 The Comparison of the Two Groups’ Posttest and Delayed Posttest Performances in the Second Target Structure………………………...

51
4.7 The Comparison of the Two Groups’ Pretest and Posttest Performances in the Third Target Structure………………………...

54
4.8 The Comparison of the Two Groups’ Posttest and Delayed Posttest Performances in the Third Target Structure………………………...

55
4.9 Learner Attitudes toward English Learning in Pre-Teaching Survey...
57
4.10 Results of Learner General Perceptions toward the 6-Week
Instruction…………………………………………………………….

60
4.11 Results of Learner Perceived Effects toward the 6-Week Instruction…………………………………………………………….

67

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page


2.1 General Language Practices: Focus on FormS, Focus on Meaning, & Focus on Form………………………………………………………..

13
2.2 Grammar Pedagogy Applied in the Study……………………………
24
3.1 Procedure of the Study……………………………………………….
40
4.1 Mean Scores of Overall Performances between Two Groups………..
46
4.2 Results of the First Target Structure Using Mean Scores…………….
48
4.3 Results of the Second Target Structure Using Mean Scores…………
52
4.4 Results of the Third Target Structure Using Mean Scores…………...
53
4.5 Learner Attitudes toward Form-based Approach in Pre-Teaching Survey………………………………………………………….……..

58
4.6 Learner Attitudes toward FonF through Communicative Approach in Pre-Teaching Survey…………………………………………………

59
4.7 Results of Learner General Perceptions in Communicative FonF toward the 6-Week Instruction……………………………………….

63
4.8 Results of Learner General Perceptions in
Traditional Grammar Instruction toward the 6-Week Instruction……

64
4.9 Results of Learner Perceived Effects in Pre-Teaching Survey.............
65
4.10 Results of Learner Perceived Effects in Traditional Grammar Instruction toward the 6-Week Instruction…………………………...

65

Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 21 (4), 471-480.
Brace, N., Kemp, R., Snelger, R. (2000). SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (Version, 8, 9, and 10). Macmillan Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30 (4), 433-548.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. New York: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 8-24.
Chang, Hiao-chuan, (2002). Integrating form-focused instruction and communicative language teaching approach: Teaching wh-questions in secondary EFL classes. Tamkung University.
Chang, S., & Huang, Y. K., “Communicative language teaching: Senior high school teachers’ beliefs and practices,” The 10th International Symposium on English Teaching (ETA-ROC), Taipei, Taiwan, Nov 16-18, 2001.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141-152.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17 (3), 379-410.
DeKeyser, R. (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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of cognitive Psychology, 5 (3), 289-319.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 87-105.
Ellis, R. (1996). Understanding second language acquisition. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64-80.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51 (3), 1-46.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419-432.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (ii), 242-260.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistic, 14 (4), 385-407.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 323-351.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52 (iv), 301-307.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (4), 605-628.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-259.
Harmer, J. (2002). How to teach English (8th ed.). Malaysia: Longman.
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hsu, C. H. (2003). Impacts of English teachers’ perceptions of communicative language teaching on classroom practices in senior high schools in Taiwan. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Huang, S. C., & Huang, S. F., “Implementing the communicative approach in junior high school classes: Teaching reflection,” The 9th International Symposium on English Teaching (ETA-ROC), Taipei, Taiwan, Nov, 2000.
Hymes, D. H. (1979). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 5-26). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Jensen, E. D., & Vinther, T. (2003). Exact repetition as input enhancement in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53 (3), 373-428.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Canada: Thomson Heinle.
Lee, Chu-tai H., & Wang, Chaochang. (2002). The effects of teaching a difficult grammatical feature of English through grammar instruction and a communicative approach. Concentric, 28 (2), 175-192.
Li, Defeng. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677-703.
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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1995). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. In H. D. Brown & S. Gonzo (Eds.), Readings on second language acquisition (pp. 306-330). USA: Prentice Hall Regents. (Original work published 1990)
Long, M. H. (1988). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. The European-North-American Symposium on Needed Research in Foreign Language Education, Bellagio, Italy: Rockefeller Center.
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-culture perspective (p. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1997). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/top.htm
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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effects of functional-analysis teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15 (3), 263-287.
Montgomery, C., & Eisenstein, M. (1985). Reality revisited: An experimental communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 317-334.
Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (ii). 241-250.
Norman, D., Lenihn, U., & Hedenquist, J. A. (1986). Communicative ideas: An approach with classroom activities. London: Commercial Colour Press.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528.
Richards, J., “30 years of TELF/TESL: A personal reflection,” The 4th Pan-Asian Conference (PAC4) and The 11th International Symposium on English Teaching (ETA-ROC), Taipei, Taiwan, Nov, 2003.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). USA: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford, W. E. (1997). Second language grammar: learning and teaching (7th ed.). New York: Longman.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83 (iv), 494-517.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (2), 261-277.
Savignon, S. (2002a). Communicative competence theory and classroom practice: Texts and contexts in second language learning (2nd ed.). Taiwan: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, S. (2002b). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp.1-27). Yale University Press.
Sax, G. (1989). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics X: 209-230.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (iv), 395-403.
Shapiro, N., & Adelson-Goldstein, J. (1998). The oxford picture dictionary. China: Oxford University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Conscious raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2 (2), 159-168.
Shih, Y. H. (2001). 溝通式教學法：針對九年一貫英語新課程. English Teaching & Learning, 25 (3), 5-21.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sysoyev, P. V. (1999). Integrative L2 grammar teaching: Exploration, explanation, and expression. http://itesl.org/Article/Sysoyev-Integrative.html
Thompson, G.. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50 (1), 9-15.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemptive in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in a second language acquisition: a critical review. Second Language Research, 14 (2), 103-135.
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching. Language Learning, 38, 243-260.
Wang, C. C. (2000). A sociolinguistic profile of English in Taiwan: Social context and learner needs. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Wang, C. C. (2002). Innovative teaching in foreign language contexts: The case of Taiwan. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 131-153). Yale University Press.
Wang, C. C., & Savignon, S. “Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner Attitudes in Taiwan,” The Proceedings of 18th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, Taiwan: Crane, May 2001.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, 4 (summer), 12-16.
Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51 (3), 303-346.