臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

文法教學在第二語言的學習領域中一直扮演著不可或缺的角色，而且有關輸入與輸出的相關議題也持續被第二語言學習的研究者所討論着。在台灣，許多英語老師強調使用溝通式教學法教英文，但他們似乎在課堂中仍著重句型的教學。本研究旨在探討輸入處理教學法(Processing Instruction)對於台灣國中學生學習英語形容詞最高級句型之教學成效。參加本研究的對象為中台灣某國中兩個八年級常態班共計五十八位同學。其中一班接受強調輸出練習的傳統英語教學法，另外一班接受強調學習者有意義的輸入處理的文法教學法。在三節四十五分鐘的教學前、後及一個月後施予兩班學生前測、立即後測和延遲後測來評量學生理解與使用此文法結構的能力。結果顯示輸入處理的文法教學法和傳統英語教學法一樣有效。兩組學生在立即後測及延遲後測中的表現，都較前測有顯著性的進步，但兩組間整體而言並無差異。在兩個後測的結果中，不管在理解或輸出的練習中，皆無法觀察到兩組間有顯著差異。本研究結果顯示輸入處理教學法能有效幫助學生學習英語最高級句型並因此可以提供台灣的第二語言學習課程另一個替代性的文法教學法。

Grammar instruction has played an indispensable role in the field of second language acquisition and the issues about input vs. output have been discussed by the SLA researchers. In Taiwan, though many English teachers claim that they use the communicative approach to teach English, they seem to focus on structures in the classroom. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of processing instruction (PI) on Taiwanese junior high school students learning the English superlative forms of adjectives. The participants were 58 second-year junior high school students from two mixed-level classes in central Taiwan. One class received traditional grammar instruction (TI) which focuses on the learners’ output practice and the other class received PI which focuses on the learners’ meaningful input processing. A test accessing the participants’ interpretative knowledge and productive ability of the target structure was administered to them as the pretest, the immediate posttest and the delayed posttest before, after and one month after three 45-minute classes. The results indicated that PI is as effective as TI. Both groups performed significantly better on the immediate and the delayed posttests than the pretest. No difference was in the tests as a whole. Nor were significant differences observed between the PI and the TI groups either in the interpretation task or in the production task of the two posttests. The findings suggest that PI can effectively benefit junior high school students learning this target structure and thus be used in Taiwan EFL classrooms as an alternative way to teach grammar.
Key words: processing instruction, the English superlative construction

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT(ENGLISH)…………………………………………………i
ABSTRACT(CHINESE)……………………………………….... ..……ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………..iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………...…. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………viii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..1
Background of the Study……………………………………………. 1
Rationale of the Study………………………………………….......8
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………..... ....11
Research Questions………………………………………….....11
Significance of the Study……………………………………….. ....11
Definitions of Terms……………………………………………12

CHPATER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………….14
The Role of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language Curriculum…………………………………………………………14
Focus on Forms, Focus on Meaning and Focus on Form………….17
Various Approaches to Focus on Form……………………..………20
The Nature of Processing Instruction……………………………...27
Major Components in PI…………………………………....32
Studies Favoring PI…………………………………………….42
Studies Showing Comparable Effects of PI and other Types of Instruction……………………………………………………...50
Studies Showing Disfavoring PI……………………………….53
Studies on the Learning of English Comparative and Superlative Forms ……………………………………………………………..58
Studies on Grammar Form-focused Instruction Studies in
Taiwan……………………………………………………………....59

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………64 Participants…………………………………………………………64
Instruments…………………………………………………………64
Instructional Packages………………………………………………..64
Assessment Tasks...…………………………………………….69
Scoring and Analysis…………………………………………………….….73
Procedures of Data Collection……………………………………...76
The Pilot Study………………………………………………..78

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………79
Results………………………………………………………………79
Comparison of the Pretest of the PI and the TI Group……….79
Comparison between the Pretest and the Immediate Posttest of the PI and the TI Groups……………………………………….79
Comparison between the Pretest and the Delayed Posttest of the PI and the TI Groups…………………………………………..84
Discussion………………………………………………………….89
Effects of PI …………………….……..………………………89
Relative Effects of PI and TI………………………………90
Relative Effects of PI and TI on the Interpretation Task…….91
Relative Effects of PI and TI on the Production Task………..94
Lasting Effects of PI………………………………………..95

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………97
Findings of the Study……………………………………………….97
Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………...99
Limitations of the Study…………………………………………100
Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………100
REFERENCES……………………………………………………….102
APPENDIX A………………………………………………………….111
APPENDIX B………………………………………………………….112
APPENDIX C………………………………………………………….114
APPENDIX D………………………………………………………….117

LISTS OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Principles of Input Processing: Principle One ……….30
Table 2.2 Principles of Input Processing: Principle Two……….31
Table 2.3 Summary of the Studies Favoring PI ……………………..47
Table 2.4 Summary of the Studies Disfavoring PI…………………..57
Table 3.1 Pearson Correlation of the Assessment Task Test and Retest for Reliability………………………………………………73
Table 3.2 Summary of the Scores and Percentage Scores of the Interpretation and Production Section of the Test…………75
Table 4.1 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Pretest Scores………………………………....….79
Table 4.2 T-tests Comparing the Pretest and the Immediate Posttest Scores ……………………………………………………80
Table 4.3 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Posttest Scores……………………………………81
Table 4.4 T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Pretest and the Immediate Posttest Scores in the Interpretation Section......81
Table 4.5 T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Pretest and the Immediate Posttest Scores in the Production Section……..82
Table 4.6 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Posttest Scores in the Interpretation Test…..…….83
Table 4.7 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Posttest Scores in the Production Test…………...83

Table 4.8 Summary of the Results Comparing the Posttest Scores between the Two groups………………..…………………84
Table 4.9 T-tests Comparing the Pretest and the Delayed Posttest Scores ……………………………………….…………….84
Table 4.10 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Delayed Posttest Scores……………………..…...85
Table 4.11 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Delayed Posttest Scores in the Interpretation Task………………………………………………………..85
Table 4.12 Independent Samples T-tests Comparing the PI and the TI Groups’ Delayed Posttest Scores in the Production Task…86
Table 4.13 Summary of the Results Comparing the Delayed Posttest Scores between the Two Groups…………………………..86

LISTS OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Input Processing and Intake in Second Language
Acquisition ………………………...….…………………..28
Figure 2.2 A Sketch of Basic Processes in Acquisition………....……29
Figure 3.1 Overview of the Procedure………………………………77
Figure 4.1 Mean Scores of the PI and the TI Groups in the Overall Performances ……………………………………………..87
Figure 4.2 Mean Scores of the PI and the TI Groups in the Interpretation Tasks…………………………………….....88
Figure 4.3 Mean Scores of the PI and the TI Groups in the Production Tasks…………………………………………………..…..89

References
Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effect of processing instruction and meaning-based instruction on the acquisition of Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127.
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-based output instruction on the acquisition of English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-96.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish tense. Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
Cheng, A. (1995). Grammar instruction and input processing: The acquisition of Spanish ser and estar. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Cheng, A. C. (2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual values. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 119-141). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey.
Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81, 576-587.
Combs, C. (2008). Topic familiarity and input enhancement: An empirical investigation. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8, 22-43.
Dekeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dekeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and productive practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
Dekeyser, R. M. & Sokalski, K. J. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81-112.
Dekeyser, R. M., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrionton, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction: A response to Bill VanPatten’s “Update”. Language Learning, 52, 805-823.
Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Ellis, R. (1990). Formal instruction and language learning. Instructed second language acquisition. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559-582.
Farley, A. P. (2001). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5, 57-93.
Farley, A. P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143-168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farley, A. P. (2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. Taipei: McGraw-Hill.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance vs. formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structured-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Ed.), New Perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 second language classroom acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, C. M. (2005). A study of junior high school English teacher’s beliefs and practices in grammar instruction. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Hsieh, W. J. (2007). Effects of task-based form-focused instruction Taiwanese junior high school students learning the English relative construction. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Hsieh, W. J. & Kung, H. A. (2006). Effects of task-based form-focused instruction on junior high school EFL students in Taiwan. Selected papers from May and June 2006 conferences on language teaching, literature, linguistics, translation, and interpretation (pp. 259-79). Changhua: Crane.
Isumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 239-261.
Isumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New Work: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (2), 409-411.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar study: Still Peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 722-725.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 245-257.
Lai, S. J. (2004). High school English teacher’s beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished Master thesis. Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Li, Y. C. (2001). Effects of the ‘Focus on form’ approach on EFL learning in an immersion program in Taiwan. Unpublished Master thesis. National Chinghua University.
Lightbown, P. & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen’s “Teaching Issues: Formal Instruction.” TESOL Quarterly, 24, 717-722.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-428.
Liu, M. H. (2009). Rethinking grammar instruction: Processing instruction (PI) as a potential alternative approach. Studies in English Language and Literature, 24, 107-130.
Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 251-286.
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. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-381.
Morgan-Short, K. & Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Overstreet, M. H. (2002). The effect of textual enhancement on second language reading comprehension and form recognition. Unpublished thesis, Urbana, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Qin, J. (2008). The effects of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Learning Research, 12, 61-82.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford, W., & Shardwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistucs, 6, 274-282.
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
Shook, J. D. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181-207.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 29, 1-15.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 369-385.
Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in second language acquisition, 16, 183-203.
VanPatten, B. & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: another replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Ecjman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-186). Philadephia: Lawerance Earlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Langugae Annals, 26, 435-450.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing the content of input processing and processing instruction research: A response to Dekeyser, Salaberry, Robinson and Harrington. Language Learning, 52, 825-831.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-241.
VanPatten, B. & Fernandez, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 273-289). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey.
VanPatten, Bill. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 5-31). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey.
White, J. (1998). Getting learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 85-133). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 12, 133-161.
White, L., Spada, N., Lighbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 187-205). Albex Publishing Cooperation. Norwood, New Jersey.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. Taipei: McGraw Hill.
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 thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Xu, J. A. (2001) Using processing instruction to teach wh-questions in secondary EFL classes in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis. National Chinghua University, ROC.