(3.239.33.139) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/08 18:35
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:簡孟芳
研究生(外文):Chien Meng Fang
論文名稱:國小英語教師口語訂正方式之研究
論文名稱(外文):An Elementary School English Teacher’s Corrective Feedback
指導教授:黃淑鴻黃淑鴻引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shu-Hung Huang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:兒童英語教育學系碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:英文
論文頁數:139
中文關鍵詞:教師錯誤訂正訂正方式學生對錯誤訂正的反應
外文關鍵詞:teacher corrective feedbacktypes of corrective feedbacklearner uptake
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:203
  • 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:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
此篇研究主要探討國小英語教學情境中,教師訂正學生口語錯誤時,所使用的訂正方式、以及訂正方式和學生反應間的關係。研究方向可分為三個面向。第一, 瞭解教師訂正方式的類別和範圍。第二, 教師訂正與學生錯誤、回應(uptake)及立即修正之間的關係。第三, 老師和學生對錯誤訂正的看法。
研究對象為三十五位國小六年級學童及其英語教師,研究者將四個月的課程觀察資料用錄音、錄影方式紀錄並把語料謄寫出來,運用Lyster 和 Ranta(1997)的模式修正後進行分析,並分別對教師進行訪談和學生問卷調查。
研究結果有四方面。首先,就學生錯誤而己,語音錯誤(phonological errors)是最常發生,而有五分之四的學生錯誤被訂正。第二,七項訂正方式均被運用於訂正不同的學生錯誤,其中直接提供正確說法之訂正方式(recasts)最常被運用。第三,約五分之四的教師訂正引起學生的回應,但其中只有二分之一是學生自我訂正。相較直接提供正確說法之訂正方式,間接引導出學生己知知識之訂正方式較能成功的引起學生自我訂正。第四,教師和學生均對錯誤訂正抱持正面態度。
雖然間接引導出學生已知知識之訂正方式較能成功的引起學生自我訂正,但學生自我訂正的比率仍不高。其中可能的原因在於學生的能力仍不足,因為本研究的對象為國小六年級生,他們的英語程度仍在基礎階段,無法自我訂正。本研究對象均對直接提供正確說法之訂正方式給予較正面的回饋,他們相信提供正確說法的訂正方式也是教學及學習方式之一。
This study aims to investigate common patters of oral error treatment, used in an EFL classroom context at elementary level, and the treatment involves the relationship between feedback types and learner responses in a teacher-fronted classroom. Three research purposes are, 1. the range and types of corrective feedback used by teacher and the relationship between learner error types and the feedback that respond to learner errors, 2. the range and types of learner uptake and immediate repair of errors that responding to the teacher’s feedback, 3. the teacher’s and students’ perspectives on the teacher’s oral error treatment.
The participants were thirty-five sixth graders and their English teacher. Based on the frameworks of treatment sequence and on the model proposed by Lyster and Ranta’s (1997), four months of observations of the English class were audio-taped and video-taped. Interviews with the teacher and participants, and questionnaire for the students were also conducted.
The findings from this study were presented as the following four facets. First, in terms of error types, phonological errors were the most often made error type and four-fifths of errors was corrected. Second, the seven types of corrective feedback were all given to different errors and recasts were the most frequently used feedback type to learner errors. Third, approximately four-fifths of the teacher’s corrective feedback moves were followed by learner uptake moves while only half of the uptake moves was students-generated repair. The feedback that drew on what the learners already knew led to more student-generated repair than the feedback that simply modified students’ erroneous utterance. Fourth, both the teacher and the students held a positive attitude towards error treatment. They were accustomed to teaching and learning by error treatment.
Although the feedback that drew on what the learners already knew rather than the feedback that modified students’ erroneous utterance led to more student-generated repair, the frequency of repair number was still not high. Student-generated repair may not happen due to their language proficiency, since the participants were sixth graders and their language proficiency was elementary level. The feedback that directly modified students’ erroneous utterance left students no need for repair. The participants were positively satisfied with this type of feedback. They believed to give or to be given correct answer or usage was another way of teaching and learning.
ACKNOWLEDGE i
ABSTRACT (Chinese version) ii
ABSTRACT (Enlgish version) iii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 9
Research Purposes 11
Research Questions 11
Significance of the Study 12
Limitation 13
Definition 13
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Errors in Language Acquisition and Learning 16
Error Types 17
a. Phonological Errors 17
b. Lexical Errors 17
c. Morphological Errors 17
d. Syntactic Errors 18
e. Discourse Errors 18
f. Factual Errors 18
Significance of Corrective feedback 19
The Role of Corrective Feedback 20
1. Corrective Feedback in First Language (L1) 20
2. Corrective Feedback in Second Language (L2) Acquisition 22
3. The Impact of Corrective Feedback for Learners’ Noticing of Gaps 24
4. Corrective Feedback in Foreigner Talk 25
5. Corrective Feedback in English as a Foreign Language Classroom (EFL) 26
Types of Corrective feedback 27
1. Recasts 29
2. Elicitation 30
3. Clarification Requests 30
4. Metalinguistic Feedback 31
5. Explicit Correction 31
6. Repetition 31
Conditions Determining the Efficacy of Corrective Feedback 32
Uptake 35
1. Repair 36
a. Self-repair 36
b. Peer-repair 37
c. Repetition 37
d. Incorporation 37
2. Needs-repair 37
a. Acknowledgment 38
b. The same Error 38
c. Different Errors 38
d. Off Target 39
e. Hesitation 39
f. Partial Repair 39
Pilot Study 41
1. Subjects 42
2. Data Collection and Analysis 42
3. Result and Conclusion 42
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 49
Participants 49
Data Sources 50
1. Observation 50
2. Note Taking 51
3. Interviews 51
3. Questionnaire 52
Data Analysis 52
1. Coding System 54
a. Coding of Types of Errors 54
b. Coding of Types of Corrective Feedback 55
c. Coding of Types of Learner Uptake 55
d. Coding Types of Needs-repair 55
2. Quantitative Analysis 56
3. Qualitative Analysis 56
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 58
Types of Error 58
1. Frequency of Errors 58
2. Frequency of Errors Corrected 59
Types of Corrective Feedback 60
The Distribution of Corrective Feedback 61
a. Recasts 62
b. Elicitation 62
c. Clarification Requests 63
d. Metalinguistic Feedback 64
e. Explicit Correction 64
f. Repetition 65
g. Peer Correction 66
Types of Learner Uptake 66
1. Frequency of Learner Uptake and No Uptake 67
a. Uptake 67
b. No Uptake. 68
2. Uptake 69
a. Repair. 69
1) Self-repair. 70
2) Peer-repair. 71
3) Repetition. 71
4) Incorporation. 72
b. Needs-repair 73
1) Acknowledgment. 73
2) The same Error. 74
3) Different Error. 75
4) Off-target. 76
5) Hesitation. 76
6) Partial Repair. 77
Teacher’s and Students’ Perspectives on Providing Corrective Feedback 78
1. The Teacher’s Perspectives 78
2. The Students’ Perspectives. 82
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONLUSION 86
Summary of Major findings 86
1. Error Types and Frequency 86
2. Types of Corrective Feedback 86
3. Correlations between Corrective Feedback and Errors 87
4. Feedback and Uptake 88
5. Impact on Learner Uptake 89
6. Teacher’s and the Students’ Perspectives 90
Discussion of Major Findings 91
1. Error Types and Frequency 91
a. The Rates of Learner Errors and the Rates of Corrective Feedback. 92
b. The Teacher’s View on Learner Error Correction. 92
2. Types of Corrective Feedback 92
a. The Preference Use of the Corrective Feedback Type. 93
b. The Choice of Corrective Feedback and the Level of Learner’s Proficiency. 94
3. Correlations between Corrective Feedback and Errors 94
a. Patterns. 94
b. Consistency and Pattern. 99
4. Feedback and Uptake 99
a. Types of Feedback Led to Learner Uptake. 100
b. Patterns of Correlation between Feedback Types and Uptake Types. 105
c. Types of Feedback did not Lead to Any Self-repair. 106
5. Impact on Learner Uptake 107
a. The Types of Feedback Influenced the Rate of Student-generated Repair. 108
b. The Types of Feedback Encouraged or Discouraged Student-generated Repair. 109
c. Feedback and Perception. 110
d. Feedback that Eliminated Ambiguity. 111
6. Teacher’s and Students’ Perspectives 113
a. Corrective Feedback was Necessary. 114
b. Patterns for Corrective Feedback. 115
c. The Students Were Accustomed to Their Teacher’s Corrective Feedback. 116
d. The Teacher Thought Uptakes Were Important. 117
Limitations 117
Suggestions 118
Conclusion 118
REFERENCES 121
Appendix A Interview Questions for the Teacher 129
Appendix B Interview Questions for the Teacher (English Version) 130
Appendix C Questionnaire for the Students (English Version) 131
Appendix D Questionnaire for the Students 132
Appendix E Teacher’s Perspectives on Error Treatment 134
Appendix F Students’ Perspectives on Error Treatment 140
Aijaafreh, A. & Lantolf, P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of Proximal Development. Model Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education: On TESOL ’75 (pp.96-109). Washington: TESOL.
Allwight, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-84.
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood, W. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101-117.
Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684-689.
Bond, H. (1992). Beyond the Chinese face-insights from higher-level learners: the example of questioning. ELT Journal, 55 (1), 4-13.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Expicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
Cathcart, R. & J. Olsen. (1976). Teachers’ and Students’ preferences for correction of Classroom Conversation Errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’76, 41-53. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Langauge Learning, 27, 29-46.
Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion classes. In R.Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp.64-84). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Chenoweth, A., Richard, D., Ann, C., & Stuart, L. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79-87.
Carroll, S. (1996). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage (pp. 73-88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner: a question of style. Education & Trainning 41(6), 294-304.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Preager.
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Press.
De Bot, k. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
Demetras, M., Post, K., & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification requests. Journal of Child Language, 13, 275-292.
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistic 1993: Strategic interaction and language acquisition (pp. 96-108). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching practice or consciousness-raising? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy (pp. 232-241). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language learning, 51,281-318.
Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign language annals, 10, 583-593.
Farrar, M. J. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 28, 90-98.
Gass, S. (1991). Grammar instruction, selective attention, and learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second language pedagogy research (pp. 124-141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. & Schachter, J. (1989) Introduction. In S. Gass and J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 1-9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grosofsky, A., Payne, D., & Campbell, K. (1994). Does the generation effect depend upon selective displaces rehearsal? American Journal of Psychology, 107, 53-68.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Daview, C. Criper, &A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp.291-311). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Hanzeli, E. (1975). Learner’s language: Implications of recent research for foreign language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 59, 426-432.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hendrickson, J. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching. In RELC Occasional papers NO. 10. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Higgs, V. (1982). Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook.
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. New York: Longman.
Judd, E. (1978). Vocabulary teaching and TESOL: A need for reevaluation of existing assumptions. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 71-76.
Kennedy, G. (1973). Conditions for language learning. In J. W. Oller, Jr & J. C. Richards (Eds), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 66-82). New York: Newbury House.
Kim, J. (2004). Issue of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Applied Linguisitics, 4, 161-170.
Kirkbride, S. & Tang, Y. (1992). Management development in the Nanyang Chinese societies of South-East Asia. Journal of Management Development, 11, 54-66.
11: 54-66.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo.
Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Orxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Lightbown, M., & Spada, N. (1999). How language are learner. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, M. & Spada, N. (2002). Instructed second language acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 115-132). London: Edward Arnold.
Lochtman, K. (2003). Oral corrective feedback in foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 271-283.
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77 (pp. 278-293). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistics environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol.2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (2003) Effects of feedback on performance: A study of advanced learners on an ESP course. Applied Linguistics, 12. 19-44.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recast, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R. (1999). The negotiation of form: The following but not the end. The Canadia Modern Language Review, 55, 355-384.
Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,237-253.
Lyster, R. & Panova, I., (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Machkey, A., Gass, S. & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive implicit negative feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnoid.
Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nelson, E., Denninger, M. Bonvillian, D., Laplan, J., & Baker, D. (1984). Maternal input adjustments as related to children’s linguistic advances and language acquisition theories. In A. Pellegrini & T. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language: Readings in developmental and applied linguistics (pp. 31-56). New York: Albex.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms: A guide for teacher-initiated action. London: Prentice Hall.
Ohta, S. (2000). Re-thinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In Hall, K. & Verplaeste, L. (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (PP. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Omaggio, C. (1984). The proficiency-oriented classroom. In T. Higgs (Ed.), teaching for proficiency: the Organizing Principle (pp. 43-84). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
Richards, C. (1973). Error analysis and second language strategies. In W. John, J. Oller, & J. Richards (Eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher (pp. 114-135). New York: Newbury House.
Roberts, M. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp.62-182). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Long, H. & Sato, J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teacher’s questions. In H. Seliger and M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.68-285). Rowley: Newbury House.
Saxton, M. (1997). The Contrast Theory of negative input. Journal of child Language, 24, 139-161.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-231.
Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7, 89-102.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics Language Asquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Schmidt, R, & Fronta, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sharwood, M. (1991). Speaking to Many Minds: on the relevance of different typs of language information for the L2 learner. Second language research, 7, 118-32.
Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In C. Anderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluation second language education (pp. 197-221). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, M. (1987). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Newbury House.
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT: Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme. Coding conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Reasearch, Macquarie University.
Stern, H. 1990. Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1988). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 6, 68-83.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: studies in hounour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 370-391.
Tang, C. (1996). Collaborative learning: The latent dimension in Chinese students’ learning. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 197-203). Hong Kong: CERC & ACER.
Tatawy, M. (2002). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Retrieved October, 28, 2004, from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/academic/tesol/Webjournal/El-Tatawy.pdf
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Vigil, N. & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative mode. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second language research, 7, 133-161.
Yau, O. (1994). Consumer behavior in China: Customer satisfaction and cultural values. New York: Routledge.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔