跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.254.59) 您好!臺灣時間:2023/01/27 18:41
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:張玉珠
研究生(外文):Yu-ju Janice Chang
論文名稱:文法意識提升對台灣國中學生學習英語關係子句之成效探討
論文名稱(外文):Effects of Grammar Consciousness-Raising on Taiwanese Junior High School Students’ Learning of the English Relative Clause Construction
指導教授:龔慧懿龔慧懿引用關係
指導教授(外文):Dr. Hui-i Amy Kung
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:131
中文關鍵詞:文法意識提升英語關係子句
外文關鍵詞:grammar consciousness-raisingEnglish relative clause construction
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:597
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:64
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本研究旨在探討文法意識提升對於台灣國中生學習英語關係子句的成效;尤其是文法意識提升及傳統文法教學法對國中生學習此文法的理解及運用能力的成效是否有差異。本研究對象為中台灣某國中兩個二年級常態班六十一位學生。其中一班授予文法意識提升而另一班則接受傳統文法教學法。兩組皆施予為期二週共六堂四十五分鐘的教學。授課前後,學生均施予文法測驗作為前測和後測以評量學生理解及運用此文法結構的能力。結果顯示,文法意識提升和傳統文法教學法一樣有效。兩組在後測中的表現都較前測有顯著性的進步,但兩組間不管是整體而言或在理解或輸出的練習中皆無顯著差異。本研究結果顯示文法意識提升能有效幫助學生學習英語關係子句並因此可以提供台灣英文老師文法教學上多一種選擇。
This quasi-experimental study aimed to investigate the effect of grammar consciousness-raising (GCR) on the learning of the English relative clause construction by EFL learners in Taiwan. Specifically, it intended to investigate whether GCR and traditional grammar instruction (TI) had different effects on the learning of this form and whether the effects of these two types of instruction on their overall, interpretative and productive performance were different. The participants were 61 second-year junior high school students from two mix-level classes in central Taiwan randomly assigned to either the TI group or the GCR group. Both of these two groups received six 45-minute periods of instruction. Before and after the instruction, a grammar test with an interpretation section and a production section was administered to the students as the pretest and posttest to measure their interpretative and productive abilities of the target structure. The results indicated that both GCR and TI had positive effects on the students’ learning of the English relative clause construction. Moreover, the two types of instruction were equally effective in promoting students’ overall performance, interpretative and productive abilities of the relative clause construction. These findings suggest that GCR can benefit junior high school students learning this target structure and thus offer EFL teachers in Taiwan an alternative approach to grammar instruction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT(ENGLISH) i
ABSTRACT(CHINESE) ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Rationale of the Study 9
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 13
Definitions of Terms 14

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 17
The Role of Grammar Instruction in SLA 17
Argument against the necessity of formal instruction 17
Studies showing positive effects on formal instruction 18
Focus-on-form 21
Various Types of Focus-on-Form Approaches 23
Implicit versus explicit instruction 23
Deductive versus inductive instruction 25
Input-based versus output-based instruction 33
Studies on the Effects of GCR Tasks 40
Studies on the English Relative Clause Construction 51
Studies on the learning of the English relative clause construction 52
Studies on the instructional effects of the English relative clause
construction in SLA 56
Studies on the instructional effects of English relative clause
connstruction in Taiwan 62
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY 65
Participants 65
Instruments 66
Instructional Packages 66
Testing Measures 72
Scoring and Data Analysis 73
Data Collection Procedure 76
The Pilot Study 79
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 80
Results 80
Discussion 85
Effects of GCR 86
Relative effectiveness of GCR and TI 87
Relative effectiveness of GCR and TI on the interpretation section 89
Relative effectiveness of GCR and TI on the production section 90
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION 93
Findings of the Study 93
Pedagogical Implications 94
Limitations of the Study 95
Suggestions for Further Research 96

REFERENCES 98
APPENDIX A- A sample of instructional material for the GCR group 114
APPENDIX B- A sample of activity worksheet for the GCR group 119
APPENDIX C- A sample of instructional material for the TI group 124
APPENDIX D- A sample of activity worksheet for the TI group 128

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Example Sentences for Four Types of the English Relative
Clause Construction with the Discontinuity. 54
Table 3.1 An Independent Samples t-test Comparing the Two Classes’
Average Monthly Exam Scores 65
Table 3.2 The Four Subtypes of Relative Clause Construction Included
in This Study 67
Table 3.3 Summary of the Scores and Percentage Scores of the
Interpretation and Production Sections of the Test 76
Table 3.4 Overview of the Procedure 78
Table 4.1 An Independent Samples t-test Comparing the GCR and
the TI Groups’ Pretest Scores 80
Table 4.2 Paired-Samples t-tests Comparing the Pretest and the Posttest Scores
of the GCR and the TI Groups 81
Table 4.3 An Independent Samples t-test Comparing the Overall Posttest Scores
of the GCR and the TI Groups 82
Table 4.4 Paired-Samples t-tests Comparing the GCR and the TI Groups’ Pretest
and the Posttest Scores of the Interpretation Section 82
Table 4.5 Paired-Samples t-tests Comparing the GCR and the TI Groups’ Pretest
and the Posttest Scores of the Production Section 83
Table 4.6 An Independent Samples t-test Comparing the GCR and the TI Groups’
Posttest Scores of the Interpretation Section 84
Table 4.7 An Independent Samples t-test Comparing the GCR and the TI Groups’
Posttest Scores of the Production Section 84
Table 4.8 Summary of the Results Comparing the Posttest Scores between
the Two Groups 85

References
Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., &; Cumo-Johanssen, P. (2005). Using a story-based approach to teach grammar. In J. L. Shrum &; E. W. Glisan (Eds.), Teachers’ handbook: Contextualized language instruction, (pp. 189-213). Boston: Thomson Heinle.
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Bolitho, R. &; Tomlinson. (1995). Discover English. Oxford: Heinemann.
Bourke, J. (1996). In praise of linguistic problem solving. RELC Journal, 27(2), 12-29.
Brooks, F. B., &; Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262–274.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principle: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The Act of Discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., &; Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. New York: Longman.
Canale, M., &; Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of Communicative Approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carless (2007). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 62(4), 331-338.
Celce-Muricia, M. (1992). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 459-480.
Celce-Muricia, M., &; Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle &; Heinle.
Chang, S. H. (2004). A comparative analysis of two Approaches to grammar teaching: Constructive vs. lecturing. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classroom Research on Teaching and Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C. S. (2004). A study on errors in English relative clauses made by senior high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, ROC.
Chen, C. Y. (2000). Senior high school EFL teachers’ views on English grammar instruction in The Proceeding of the ninth International Symposium on English teaching, 188-197.
Chen, P. Y. (2006). The effect of exploration method on grammar learning. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, ROC.
Chen, Y. C. (2012). Effects of processing instruction on Taiwanese junior high school students learning the English relative construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Chiu, Y. K. (2007). The effectiveness of processing instruction on teaching indirect wh-question: A case study of university freshman. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Tamkang University, ROC.
Chou, Y. H. (2006). Acquisition of English relative clause by Taiwan EFL college students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Sun Yet-sen University, ROC.
Chuang, C. H. (2010). English teachers’ and students’ beliefs in grammar teaching and Learning in Taiwan Vocational High Schools. Unpublished Master’s thesis. National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Clark, E., &; Clark, H. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposite: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL, 34, 95-118.
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 language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dekeyser, R. M., &; Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 81-112.
Doughty, C. (1988). The effect of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.
Doughty, C., &; Williams, J. (Eds.). (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., &; Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge 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.
Eckman, F., Bell, L., &; Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 1-20.
Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289-319.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87-105.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and researching: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 39-60.
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: Investigation form-focused instruction. Language learning, 51(3), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2002a). Grammar teaching- Practice or consciousness-raising? In Richards, J. C., &; Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002b). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2002c). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 155-179). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2002d). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erlam, R. (2003a). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structure-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 559-582.
Erlam, R. (2003b). 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, 242-260.
Farley, A. P. (2001). Processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction: A comparative study. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5, 57-93.
Farley, A. P. (2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-oriented classroom. Taipei: McGraw-Hill International.
Fischer, R. A. (1979). The inductive-deductive controversy revisited. Modern Language Journal, 63(3), 98-105.
Fortune, A. (1992). Self-study grammar practice: Learners’ view and preferences. ELT Journal, 46 (2), 160-69.
Fotos, S., &; Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628.
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 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(4), 301-307.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 135-54). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hynes &; W. Rutherford (Eds), On TESOL ’81: Selected papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 129-138). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum.
Gollin, J. (1998). Key concepts in ELT: Deductive vs. inductive language learning. ELT Journal, 52(1), 88-9.
Haight, C. E., &; Herron, C., &; Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288-310.
Hamilton, R. (1994). Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal? Evidence from relativization instruction in a second language. Language Learning, 44, 123-157.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 245-259.
Harley, B., &; Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, &; A.P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herron, C., &; Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Hinkel, E., &; Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to practice: A teacher’s view. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.
Hossein, S., &; Sandra, F. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Hsieh, C. M. (2005). A study of junior high school English teacher’s beliefs and practices in grammar instruction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Hsieh, W. J. (2008). Effects of task-based form-focused instruction Taiwanese junior high school students learning the English relative construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Hsin, A. L., &; Wang, M. J. (2005). The order of difficulty in relative clause learning for Chinese EFL students. English Teaching of Learning, 29(3), 61-84.
Huang, H. C. (2007). A case study of using inductive grammar instruction in the English class. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Southern Taiwan University, ROC.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129-40.
Izumi, S., &; Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239-78.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., &; Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421-452.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323.
Keenan, E., &; Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.
Kelly, L. (1969). Twenty-five centuries of language teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices 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(4), 722-25.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 245-257.
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(1), 117-36.
Lai, S. J. (2003). High school English teachers' beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). The grammar of choice. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lee, P. Y. (2005). A study of English grammar instruction in elementary schools in Taipei. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Lee, S. K., &; Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331.
Leow, R. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113-155.
Li, Y. C. (2001). Effects of the ‘Focus on form’ approach on EFL learning in an immersion program in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chinghua University of Education, ROC.
Liao, M. C., &; Wang, H. C. (2009). Perception differences of EFL teachers and students in grammar instruction and error correction. English Teaching &; Learning, 33(1), 101-145.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-62.
Lightbown, P. 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(4), 429-448.
Lin, M. H. (2007). The effects of the inductive and deductive approaches on elementary school students’ English grammar acquisition. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chaoyang University of Technology, ROC.
Liou, M. C. (2009). Effects of meaningful input-based and meaningful output-based grammar instruction on Taiwanese senior high school students’ learning of English relative clauses. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Liu, J. Y. (2006). The acquisition of written English relative clauses by Taiwanese learners. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Providence University, ROC.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., &; Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(i), 91-104.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language, 8(2), 1–26.
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.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-30.
Mohammed, N. (2001). Teaching grammar through consciousness-raising tasks: Learning outcomes, learner preferences and task performance. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective. ELT Journal, 58(3), 228-237.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
Nakamori, T. (2002). Teaching relative clauses: how to handle a bitter lemon for Japanese learners and English teachers. ELT Journal, 56(1), 29-40.
Nassaji, H. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385-402.
Nassaji, H. (2000). A reply to Sheen. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 507-513.
Nassaji, H., &; Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nitta, R., &; Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(1), 3-13.
Norris, J., &; Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of lerner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229-258.
Paesani, K. (2005). Literary texts and grammar instruction: Revisiting the inductive presentation. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 15-23.
Paulston, C. (1971). The sequencing of structural pattern drills. TESOL Quarterly, 5(3), 197-208.
Paulston, C., &; Bruder, M. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Teaching and procedures. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Peng, T. J. (2008). Acquisition of English Relative Clauses by Taiwan EFL Senior High School Students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, ROC.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214.
Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review, 5, 40-72.
Reber, A. (1989). Implicit learningand tacit knowledge: Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118(3), 219-235.
Reber, A. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Richards, J. C., &; Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2002). Accuracy and fluency revisited. In E. Hinkel &; S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom (pp. 35-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45-99.
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.
Rutherford, W., &; Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Rutherford, W., &; Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1988). Grammar and second language teaching: A book of reading. New York: Heinle &; Heinle Publishers.
Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English Restrictive Relative Clauses by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Adult Native Speaker. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32(2), 141-153.
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24(2), 105-214.
Scheffler, P. (2008). Rule difficulty and the usefulness of instruction. ELT Journal, 63(1), 5-12.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994b). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconsciousness: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, V., &; Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100-113.
Seliger, H. W. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. IRAL, 13(1), 2-18
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
Shak, J., &; Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387-408.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 159-168.
Sheen, R. (1992). Problem solving brought to task. RELC Journal, 23(1), 44-59.
Shook, J. D. (1994). FL / L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis &; D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17-30). Oxford: Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 29(1), 1-15.
Spada, N., &; Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.
Spada, N., &; Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263-308.
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.
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., &; Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan &; M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the development of language learners’ pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 92(3), 369-386.
Trahey, M., &; White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Cooperation.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.
VanPatten, B., &; Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–259.
VanPatten, B., &; Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty. &; J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. 91-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W., &; VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are Out. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403-423.
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’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, ROC.
Wu, M. S. (2010). Effects of processing instruciton on Taiwan junior high school students learning the English superlative construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In Odlin, T. (Ed.). Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 123-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top