臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在臺灣，英語學習正式納入國小學童的語言教育中已達數年，然而臺灣的研究者及學校英語教師對國小學童的文法學習成效卻所知不多。在這樣缺少研究進行的情況下，筆者認為有探討學童文法學習成效的必要性。因此，研究者決定採用歸納法與演繹法來進行本研究的文法教學。
本研究隨機挑選了六十四名國小六年級的學童並將他們隨機分派到演繹組與歸納組。兩組受試者各別接受了為期十二週的歸納法及演繹法實驗教學。資料收集包括了一個前測及兩個後測，其目的是檢視學童的文法習得成就及對所學的文法記憶程度為何。此外，本研究亦採用訪談來了解受試者對本實驗的感想。研究結果發現兩組的學生在文法習得成就上皆達到了顯著性的進步。此外，演繹組的受試者在文法學習成就上比歸納組的受試者更高。在訪談部分，兩組的受試者皆對本實驗的教學法持有正面及負面的感受。

Even though the Minister of Education has incorporated English education into primary school curriculum for years, the effects of teaching grammar to children remain unknown to English teachers and researchers. The existing research findings underlined the necessity of exploring the acquisition of English grammar rules by Taiwanese elementary school students. The inductive and deductive approaches for grammar teaching were therefore investigated in this thesis.
Sixty-four students from a single primary school were randomly selected and assigned to an inductive or deductive group. Both groups received a 12-week experiment using either the inductive or deductive approach. Data collection instruments consisted of one pre-test and two post-tests that assessed student grammar comprehension achievement and retention of the grammatical rules. Additionally, six students were interviewed to investigate their perceptions regarding the instruction approaches. Research findings suggested that students taught using either approach were capable of comprehending and acquiring the target grammar. Students in the deductive group significantly outperformed those in the inductive group. Furthermore, participants in each group expressed both positive and negative attitudes toward the instructions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……….……………………….……………………………………………. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………… iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………..…………………………………. v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………..…………………………………… viii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………..………………………….………. x
CHAPTER I Introduction………………………..…………..………………………… 1
Background…………….………………………...……………………………… 1
Overview of Inductive and Deductive Approaches.……………………………... 2
Purpose of the Study………………………...…………………………………… 4
Research Questions………………………………..…………………………….. 4
CHAPTER II Literature Review……………………………………….……………… 6
English Grammar Instruction in Elementary Schools………….………………... 6
Definition of Terms……………….…………………….…………….…………. 7
Inductive Approach……………………………………………………….… 7
Deductive Approach………………………………………………………... 7
Implicit and Explicit Inductions…………………………………………………. 7
Effects of the Inductive and Deductive Approaches…….……....………………. 8
Verb Tense Errors……………….……….……….……………………………… 13
CHAPTER III Methodology……..…………………….……………………………… 16
Research Hypotheses.…………..……………………………………….……….. 16
Variables in the Study……………………………………………………………. 17
Pilot Study…………..…………………………………………………………… 18
Participants…………………………………………………………………. 19
Procedures………………………………………………………………….. 19
Main Research Design……………………….……………….…………….……. 25
Participants…………………………………………………………………. 26
Procedures………………………………….………………….…………… 28
Statistic Data Analysis………………….……………………………..…………. 32
Qualitative Inquiry Analysis……………………………………………………... 33
CHAPTER IV Results and Discussion………..………………………………..……… 34
Participant Grades in English Proficiency…………………………..…………… 34
The Interaction of Approach and Proficiency in the Pre-test……………………. 35
The interaction of Approach and Gender in the Pre-test………………………… 37
The Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approaches on Verb Learning………… 39
Comparison of Interactive Effects………………………………………….……. 43
Qualitative Inquiry of Learning Attitudes………...…………………….……….. 48
Participants in the Inductive Approach Group……………………………... 49
Participants in the Deductive Approach Group…………………………….. 53
Quantitative Implications and Discussion………………………………….. 56
Qualitative Implications and Discussion…………………………………… 59
CHAPTER V Conclusion..……………………………...…….……………………….. 61
Research Conclusion…..……………...…………………………………………. 61
Significance of the Study….…………….…….…………………………………. 62
Study Limitations…………...…….……………………………….…………….. 63
Suggestions for Further Studies……………….…………………….…………… 64
REFERENCES…………………………………….…………………………………….. 65
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………… 69
Appendix I: Information Letter for the Main Study……………..……………..... 69
Appendix II: Student Consent Form for the Main Study.……….…….…...…….. 70
Appendix III: Parental Consent Form for the Main Study….………………..….. 71
Appendix IV: Target Teaching Materials for the Main Study...…………..……... 72
Appendix V: Course Design for the Main Study……………..….………………. 73
Appendix VI: Semi-structured Interview Questions…...………………………... 77
Appendix VII: Post-test…………..………………………….…………………... 78


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Correlation Between the Scores of SARE and the Post-test in the Pilot Study… 25
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Approach and English Proficiency…….….……….… 27
Table 3: Dates, Duration, and Locations of the Interviews……………………….……... 30
Table 4: Confirmation of Interpretations with Participants………….…....……………... 31
Table 5: Correlation Between SARE and Post-test I in the Main Study……….….…..… 32
Table 6: Participant English Proficiency……………...…………………………………. 35
Table 7: Participant Initial Understanding of the Target Rules…………………...……... 35
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test for Approach and Proficiency…...…………... 36
Table 9: Interactive Effects of Approach and Proficiency in the Pre-test……………….. 37
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test for Gender and Approach………….……….. 38
Table 11: Interactive Effects of Gender and Approach in the Pre-test….…….……….… 38
Table 12: Examination of the Effect of the Inductive Approach on Verb Learning …….. 40
Table 13: Examination of the Effect of the Deductive Approach on Verb Learning…….. 40
Table 14: Comparison of the Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approaches on Accuracy of Applying Grammar Rules...………………….…………………42
Table 15: Comparison of the Effects of Inductive and Deductive Approaches on Retention of Grammar….…………………………..…………………………43
Table 16: Interactive Effect of Approach and Proficiency on Accuracy of Applying Grammar Rules………………………………………………………………44
Table 17: Interactive Effect of Approach and Proficiency on Retention of Verb Tenses... 45
Table 18: Interactive Effect of Approach and Gender on Accuracy of Applying Grammar Rule………………………………………………………….……47
Table 19: Interactive Effect of Approach and Gender on Retention of Verb Tenses…….. 48
Table 20: Participant Responses to the Two Approaches………….…………………….. 49
Table 21: Background Information of the Six Interviewed Participants…..…………….. 50


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Pilot Study Procedures……………………………….….……………….……. 18
Figure 2: Sample Practice Questions…………………………....…..……….……….….. 23
Figure 3: Main Research Procedures………………..……...………………….………… 26

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful learning. New York: Crune & Stratton.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 420-423.
Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chan, T. P. (2004). The effects of CALL approaches on EFL college students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chang, C. C. (1999). A case study of the effect of error correction on the grammatical structures of three Chinese university students'' EFL writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Chen, C. C. (1979). An error analysis of English composition written by Chinese students in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Chen, J. H. (2004). Interference of L1 on L2 in college students’ writing: A case study of Chinese EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Hsinchuang, Taipei County, Taiwan.
Ching, P. J. (1992). How to improve English composition teaching in Taiwan''s high schools: A study of error analysis and learning strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Yanchao Township, Kaohsiung County, Taiwan.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of L2 grammar: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 188-194.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistics system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242-260.
Fischer, A. R. (1979). The inductive-deductive controversy revised. Modern Language Journal, 63, 98-105.
Galotti, K. M., Komatsu, L. K., & Voelz, S. (1997). Children’s differential performance on deductive and inductive syllogisms. Developmental Psychology, 33, 70-78.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Brandt, S. O. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gross, D. (1991). A practical handbook of learning teaching. London: Cassell.
Hammerly, H. (1975). The deduction/induction controversy. Modern Language Journal, 59, 15-18.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French Review, 65, 708-718.
Ho, W. K. (1973). An investigation of errors in English composition of some pre-university students in Singapore. RELC Journal, 4, 48-65.
Huang, H. S. (1994). An analytic study on tense errors committed by Chinese learners of English in southern Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Yanchao Township, Kaohsiung County, Taiwan.
Huang, S. L. (2001). Error analysis and teaching composition. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis issues and implications. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Under what circumstances, if any, should formal grammar instruction take place? TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Lai, S. J. (2004). High school English teachers'' beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lee, C. T., & Haseltine, P. (2001). Basic English grammar. Taipei: Lianjin..
Lee, J. R. (1998). The effect of instruction with creative thinking strategies on elementary school students’ English learning attitude. Unpublished master’s thesis, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan.
Lee, P. Y. (2005). A study of English grammar in elementary schools in Taipei. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Liu, C. H. (2002). An action research of cooperative English teaching for elementary school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25, 515-534.
Robinson, P. (1994). Computers, corpora and language. The Teacher Trainer, 8, 3-8.
Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal, 73, 395-403.
Wang, L. Y. (2002). Effects of inductive and deductive approach on EFL learning collocation patterns by using concordancers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliou, Yunlin County, Taiwan.