(3.230.173.249) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/18 08:14
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:呂宜怡
研究生(外文):Yiyi Lu
論文名稱:溝通式遊戲對國小六年級學童文法學習影響之研究
論文名稱(外文):Grammar Teaching for 6th Grade EFL Students: The Use of Communicative Games
指導教授:卓江卓江引用關係
指導教授(外文):John Truscott
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:溝通式教學法溝通式遊戲反覆練習國小學童過去式文法教學
外文關鍵詞:Communicative Language TeachingCommunicative gamesdrillselementary school studentspast tensegrammar teaching
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:12
  • 點閱點閱:770
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:158
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:9
國小英語課程在幾年前正式地開辦,兒童英語學習成為熱門研究課題,而其中培養學生英語溝通能力成為政令法規與教學者一致的目標,因此九年一貫課程便依照溝通式教學法 (Communicative Language Teaching) 而設計。遊戲是表現溝通式教學法很好的途徑,也是兒童英文教學中常見的技巧,所以我們經常鼓勵教師設計適合的溝通活動,並讓第二外語學習者積極參與課室裡的活動。然而,在實際觀察課室活動與教材編纂中,常可發現反覆的句型練習(drills)占據較多教學時間、教材本身溝通度的設計較低、以及教師手冊無法提供足夠的溝通式活動。此種現象可有兩種解釋:可能是溝通式教學法本身並沒有一個明確可依循的程序或定義,造成誤解與活動設計上的困難;又或者是編輯者與教師認為反覆的句型練習對於學生的英語學習有相同的功效。此研究針對後者的想法,比較溝通式活動與反覆句型練習在兒童文法教學上的成效,以及學生對於此兩種教學法的觀感。
我們的研究問題包含(一)在溝通式遊戲、反覆句型練習、以及無任何練習活動三種情形下,受試者學習過去式文法的成效,(二)溝通式遊戲與反覆句型練習的長期影響,(三)受試者對於此兩種教學法之反應。遊戲組的課程設計根據Johnson & Morrow (1981)提出的三項要素:訊息互補(information gap)、選擇(choice)、以及回饋(response)。練習組則延襲傳統教學法中已有的重複練習、記憶對話、單字替換練習。控制組則僅有文法說明,並無任何相關活動。來自三個班級87位國小六年級學童參與此實驗,接受為期一個月有關過去式文法的教學活動。所有受試者的文法學習情況皆接受前測、後測、以及延後測評量,並於教學活動後填寫一份評估問卷。
資料分析結果顯示:第一、在後測中,三組在各項測驗皆有明顯進步。其中,遊戲組在閱讀及口語測驗上有較優異的表現,在聽力測驗則與其他兩組無差異。第二、兩個半月後的延後測中,遊戲組與練習組有些微的進步,在閱讀測驗上遊戲組仍舊明顯優異,在聽力與口語測驗則無明顯差異。第三、問卷結果顯示受試者對於兩種教學法皆抱持著正面的態度,並肯定其學習文法的功能。
本研究結果顯示利用溝通式遊戲可提升英文文法能力,更比反覆練習有立即性與持久的成效。此外,我們認為溝通式遊戲有助於學生對英文的興趣以及與同儕的互動。最後,此研究提供了利用溝通式遊戲的教學建議以及未來活動設計修正方向。
English curriculum for elementary school students started since e few years ago and children’s learning English has become a popular topic. Developing students’ communicative ability is the government and teachers’ shared goal, so the guideline of Nine-year Integrated Curriculum was designed based on the principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Games have been regarded as a common skill of CLT for enhancing children’ learning of a foreign language. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to design proper communicative activities to encourage students’ active participation of learning.
In contrast, through the investigation and observation of classroom activities and textbook design, it was noticed that fewer communicative activities are used and drills occupied much class time. Two reasons were provided to explain the phenomenon. First, CLT does not provide concrete methods, which may lead to difficulties or confusion of activity design. Second, teachers and editors believe that drills are helpful for language learning. For the second reason, this study attempted to investigate the effectiveness of communicative games and drills in teaching children grammar and how students response to the different activities.
Eighty-seven English-as-a-foreign-language sixth graders were recruited to receive a one-month instruction of singular past tense. A pretest, a posttest, a delayed posttest, and an attitude questionnaire were used as instruments for data collection. Students were randomly assigned to the drill group, game group, and control group. The drill group followed the traditional teaching method with several kinds of drills. The game group participated in three communicative games designed according to the three principles: information gap, choice, and feedback (Johnson & Morrow, 1981). The control group received explicit instruction of rules only.
Through data analyses, the following findings were obtained. First, the three groups achieved significant gains on the posttest. Among three tests, ANOVA showed significant differences on the reading and oral test in favor of the game group, but no difference was found on the listening test. Second, the delayed posttest showed the drill and game group had slight improvement. The game group was superior to the drill group on the reading test, but no difference on the other tests. Third, the results of attitude questionnaires showed students’ positive attitudes toward the two activities.
The results of the study showed that communicative games could foster students’ learning of grammar and had equal or better effectiveness than drills. Moreover, it is suggested that games are beneficial to students’ interest of learning of English and their interaction with peers. With regards to directions for future refinements on developing communicative games, research methods which could enhance better understanding of students’ attitudes and proficiency were recommended.
中文摘要.................................................i
Abstract................................................ii
Acknowledgement ........................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................v
List of Figures .......................................vii
List of Tables ...................................... viii
Chapter 1 - Introduction.................................1
Chapter 2 - Literature Review............................4
2.1 Overview of grammar teaching.........................4
2.1.1 Grammar is teachable...............................4
2.1.2 Instruction is of limited use......................5
2.1.3 An eclectic method: FonF...........................6
2.1.4 Teaching kids grammar with games...................7
2.2 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)................9
2.2.1 Introduction of Communicative Language Teaching....9
2.2.2 The use of CLT in elementary classrooms...........10
2.3 Games...............................................13
2.3.1 Games in language learning........................13
2.3.2 Categories of games...............................15
2.4 Drills..............................................17
2.4.1 Drills in language teaching.......................17
2.4.2 Categories of drills..............................21
2.5 Choice of grade level...............................22
2.6 Target of instruction: English past tense -ed.......23
Chapter 3 - Research Design and Methodology.............25
3.1 Overview............................................25
3.2 Instructional treatment.............................26
3.2.1 Explicit instruction..............................27
3.2.2 Game group........................................28
3.2.3 Drill group.......................................34
3.3 Test instruments....................................36
3.3.1 Test 1: Listening comprehension test..............36
3.3.2 Test 2: Reading comprehension test................37
3.3.3 Test 3: Oral test.................................37
3.4 Data analysis.......................................38
Chapter 4 - Research Results and Discussion.............40
4.1 Overview............................................40
4.2 Results.............................................40
4.2.1 The results of the pretest and the posttest among three groups............................................40
4.2.2 The results of the game and drill group in the delayed posttest........................................44
4.2.3 Participants’ attitude questionnaire.............47
4.3 Summary & Discussion................................49
4.3.1 Research question 1: The immediate effects of the three groups............................................49
4.3.2 Research Question 2: The long-term effects of the two groups..................................................54
4.3.3 Research Question 3: What are students’ attitudes...............................................56
Chapter 5 - Conclusion..................................60
5.1 Overview............................................60
5.2 Limitations of the Study............................61
5.3 Directions for Future Research......................62
5.3.1 Research method...................................62
5.3.2 Research variables................................63
5.3.3 Research subjects.................................63
5.4 Pedagogical Implications............................63
Reference...............................................65
Appendix A - Test 1: Listening comprehension test.......70
Appendix B - Test 2: Reading comprehension test.........71
Appendix C- Explicit instruction of rules...............72
Appendix D- Game 1: 20 Questions........................73
Appendix E- Game 2: Detective Game......................74
Appendix F - Game 3: Gossip King........................78
Appendix G - Drill 1: Memorization drill................80
Appendix H- Drill 2: Single-slot substitution drill.....81
Appendix I- Drill 3: Question-and-answer drill..........82
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Byrne, D., (1994). Teaching oral English. England: Longman.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25-58.
Dubin, F., & Olshtain E. (1986). Course design: Developing programs and materials for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The functional-notional approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, J. M. (1993). Student attitudes toward communicative and non-communicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together? Modern Language Journal, 77, 1-10.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom Experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel, E. (1992). L2 tense and time reference. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 556-572.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Tense, aspect, and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8, 5-29.
Ho, S. R. (2004). Investigating distribution of instruction types in EFL elementary and junior high school teaching materials. MA thesis in Tung Hai University.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, K., & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in the classroom. Essex: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing research, theory and application. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Formal grammar instruction…another educator comments… TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722-725.
Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2004). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lin, H. R. (2002). Effects of communicative language teaching on English learning and cultural learning for children. PhD dissertation in National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Lee, W. R. (1979). Language teaching games and contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lin, Y.H. (2001). Syllable simplification strategies: A stylistic perspective. Language Learning, 51, 681-718.
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251-285.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287.
Pan, P. H. (2004). Evaluation of learning activities in junior high school English textbooks for Nine-year Integrated Curriculum. MA thesis in National Taiwan Normal University.
Paulston, C. B. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-97.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
Richard-Amato, P.A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language. England: Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1996). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rixon, S. (1984). How to use games in language teaching. London: Macmillan.
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.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Schultz, M., & Fisher, A. (1988). Games for all reasons: Interacting in the language classroom. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L. H. (1990). Teaching English to children. New York: Longman.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205-221.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.
VanPatten, B. (1986). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Implications for grammatical accuracy in the classroom? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 56-67.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-244.
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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403-423.
Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (1987). Games for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
李家同 (2004),學好英文沒有捷徑。台北:聯經出版事業公司。
鄭錦桂 (2001),國小英語教師對溝通式教學的詮釋與看法。人文及社會學科教學通訊,11卷5期,61-75頁。
Nathan, I. (1981), 皮亞傑兒童心理學淺述。台北:聯經出版事業公司。
Global Distance Education Net: http://www1.worldbank.org/disted/glossary.html
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔