跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.64.76) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/17 09:04
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:林子君
研究生(外文):Lin,Tzu-Chun
論文名稱:文法意識提升對台灣高中學生學習英語假設語氣之成效探討
論文名稱(外文):Effects of Grammar Consciousness-Raising Instruction on Taiwanese Senior High School Students' Learning of the English Conditional
指導教授:龔慧懿龔慧懿引用關係
指導教授(外文):Kung, Hui-I
口試委員:龔慧懿張善貿蔡雅琴
口試委員(外文):Kung, Hui-IChang, Shan-MaoTsai, Ya-Chin
口試日期:2018-01-10
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:2018
畢業學年度:106
語文別:英文
論文頁數:105
中文關鍵詞:文法意識提升英語假設語氣
外文關鍵詞:grammar consciousness-raisingthe English conditional
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:230
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討文法意識提升對於台灣高中生學習英文假設語氣之成效及文法意識提升和傳統文法教學法對高中生學習此文法的理解及運用能力的成效是否有差異。研究對象為76位中台灣某高中兩班一年級學生,共計五堂五十分鐘課程。其中一班接受以輸入導向為主的文法意識提升教學法,而另一班則接受以輸出式練習為主的傳統英語教學法。授課前後,學生均施予前測和後測,以評量學生理解及運用此文法結構的能力。本研究以獨立樣本t檢定及成對樣本t檢定分析所得數據。結果顯示,經由文法意識提升和傳統文法教學法,兩組在假設語氣之理解或輸出能力皆有所提升。本研究結果顯示,文法意識提升和傳統文法教學法一樣有效,皆能幫助學生學習英語假設語氣。因此,文法意識提升可以成為台灣英文老師文法教學上的另一個選擇。
This quasi-experiment study investigated the effect of grammar consciousness-raising (GCR) instruction on Taiwanese senior high school students’ learning of the English conditional and the relative effects of GCR and the traditional grammar instruction (TI) on their overall, comprehension, and productive performance. The participants were 76 first-year senior high school students from two mixed-level classes in central Taiwan. One class was assigned as the GCR group, in which the participants received input-oriented instruction and inductive activities for the discovery of the rules, and the other was the TI group, in which the participants had have output-based instruction and deductive exercises. The instructional time for both groups were five 50-minute class periods. The pretest and the posttest with a comprehension and a production sections were administrated before and after the instruction. The independent samples t-tests and the paired-samples t-tests were carried out to analyze the data. The results show that GCR and TI both improved students’ comprehension and production of the English conditional; GCR and TI were equally effective in enhancing students’ learning of the target structure after the treatment. Therefore, GCR instruction can be an alternative for senior high school English teachers to teach grammar.
ABSTRACT(ENGLISH) i

ABSTRACT(CHINESE) ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi


CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study 1

Rationale of the Study 5

Purpose of the Study 7

Research questions 7

Significance of the Study 7

Definitions of terms 8


CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW 11

The Role of Grammar Instruction in SLA 11

Focus-on-Form 13

Various Types of Focus-on-Form Approaches 16

Implicit versus explicit instruction 17

Deductive versus inductive instruction 18

Input-based versus output-based instruction 22

Studies on Grammar Consciousness-Raising 28

Studies on the English conditionals 36

Studies on Taiwan EFL learners' learning of English conditionals 37


CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY 42

Participants 42

Instruments 43

Instrumental packages. 43

The testing measure. 48

Data Collection Procedure 51

Scoring and Data Analysis 52

The Results of the Pilot Study 57


CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 58

Results 58

Discussion 64

Effects of GCR. 64

Relative effects of GCR and TI 65

Relative effects of GCR and TI on the comprehension section 65

Relative effects of GCR and TI on the production section 66


CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION 68

Findings of the Study 68

Pedagogical Implications 69

Limitations of the Study 70

Suggestions for Further Research 70


References 72

Appendix A 83

Appendix B 90

Appendix C 102
Amirian, S. M. R., & Abbasi, S. (2014). The Effect of Grammatical Consciousness-Raising Tasks on Iranian EFL Learners’ Knowledge of Grammar. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 251-257.
Amirian, S. M. R., & Sadeghi, F. (2012). The effect of grammar consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners performance. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 708-720.
Balcom, P., & Bouffard, P. (2015). The Effect of Input Flooding and Explicit Instruction on Learning Adverb Placement in L3 French. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 1.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 95-127.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in second language acquisition, 4(01), 31-45.
Brown, H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc.
Celce‐Murcia, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. Foreign language annals, 18(4), 297-301.
Chang, H. S., & Lin, M. H. (2013). Using Consciousness-Raising Grammar Teaching in EFL Elementary English Class: Effects on English Grammar Learning.
Chang, T. Y. (2004). A study of the learning of English “counterfactual” conditionals by high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, ROC.
Chang, Y. J. (2012). Effects of grammar consciousness-raising on Taiwanese junior high school students’ learning of the English relative construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Chen, C. S. (2003). Acquisition of English Counterfactual Conditional Sentences by Chinese Speakers in Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis, Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/clas/English/linguistics/
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.
Dang, T. T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Direct versus indirect explicit methods of enhancing EFL students’ English grammatical competence: A concept checking-based consciousness-raising tasks model. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 112.
Decoo,W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34, 95–118.
DeKeyser, R. (1991). Foreign language development during a semester abroad. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom, 104-119.
Dekeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in second language acquisition 27 (2), 141-172.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence
Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness‐raising tasks: pedagogically targeted and non‐targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 119-145.
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. (1997). SLA Research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigation form-focused instruction. Language learning, 51(3), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching-practice or consciousness-raising. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 167-174.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. Tesol Quarterly, 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching, 42, 3-25.
Ellis, R. (2010). Does explicit grammar instruction work? NINJAL Project Review, 2, 3-22.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second language acquisition, 21(02), 285-301.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.
Ellis, R., Loewen, Sh., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. The UK: Multilingual Matters.
Erlam, R. (2003). 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.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, 135-154.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.
from an empirical study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.
Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2011). Role of consciousness in second language acquisition. Theory and practice in language studies, 1(5), 435-442.
Harley, B. l., & Swain, M.(1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. Interlanguage, 291-311.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, 181-198.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles. System, 41(4), 1023-1042.
Kao, C. C. (2007, November). The role of grammar teaching in college EFL. In Management symposium, Taiwan. Retrieved from CNKI.
Ke, Y. S. (2004). Form-Function Mapping In The Acquisition Of If-Conditionals: A Corpus-Based Study. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/s ummary?doi=10.1.1.132.2520.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output?. System, 26(2), 175-182.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New Work: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second language acquisition and second language learning. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar study: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 722-25.
Lee, C. R. (2014). Effects of Grammar Consciousness-Raising Instruction on Taiwanese junior high school students learning of the English passive construction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, ROC.
Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students' reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language learning, 57(1), 87-118.
Li, S. (2012). The Effects of Input‐Based Practice on Pragmatic Development of Requests in L2 Chinese. Language Learning, 62(2), 403-438.
Li, Z. G., & Song, M. Y. (2007). The Relationship between Traditional English Grammar Teaching and Communicative Language Teaching. Online Submission, 4(1), 62-65.
Lier, L. V. (1998). The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning. Language awareness, 7(2-3), 128-145.
Liu. (2011). Second Language Acquisition of If-Conditionals in English (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.c gi/ccd=NG0QRo/search#result
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. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (p. 16-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review
Long, M. H. (1998). Focus on form Theory, research, and practice Michael H. Long Peter Robinson. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 15, 15-41.
Mishan, F. (2005). Designing Authenticity into Language Learning. Portland: Intellect Books.
Mohamed, N. (2001). Teaching grammar through consciousness-raising tasks’. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Auckland.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: A learner perspective. ELT Journal, 58(3), 228-237.
Moradkhan, D., & Sohrabian, R. (2009). Grammar consciousness-raising tasks and the improvement of Iranian students’ knowledge of grammar. Journal of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature, 1(4), 57-71.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 16(1).
Nazari, N. (2013). The effect of implicit and explicit grammar instruction on learners’ achievements in receptive and productive modes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 156-162.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Nourdad, N., & Aghayi, E. T. (2014). Focus on Form in Teaching Passive Voice of Different Tenses. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1400-1408.
Nourdad, N., & Aghayi, E. T. (2014). Focus on Form in Teaching Passive Voice of Different Tenses. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1400-1408.
of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner 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.
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language learning, 33(4), 465-497.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy, 20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radwan, A. A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System, 33(1), 69-87.
Ranalli, J. M. (2001). Consciousness-raising versus deductive approaches to language instruction: A study of learner preferences. University of Birmingham.
Rashtchi, M. (2010). Noticing through Input Enhancement: Does it Affect Learning of the Conditionals?. Language and Translation, 1(1).
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 118(3), 219.
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.
Rokni, S. J. A. (2009). A Comparative Study of the Effect of Explicit-inductive and Explicit-deductive Grammar Instruction in EFL Contexts. Language in India, 9(11).
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1988). Grammar and second language teaching: A book of reading. New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures (No. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Selinger, H. W. (1975) Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: a re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 1-18.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
Sheen, R. (1992). Problem solving brought to task’. RELC Journal. 23(2), 44-59.
Sheen, R. (2002). 'Focus on form' and 'focus on forms'. ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-305.
Shook, J. D. (1994). FL / L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5, 57-93.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated Negotiated Interaction: An Expanded Model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
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., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
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.
Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. New J: Ablex Publishing Cooperation.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate‐level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 353-380.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
White, L. (1991). Argument structure in second language acquisition. Journal of French Language Studies, 1(2), 189-207.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
Widodo, H. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English teaching, 5(1), 121.
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. Taipei: McGraw-Hill.
Woods, E., Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (1995). Introducing grammar. Penguin English.
Wu, C. H. (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.
Yang, C. H., Haggard, S., & Li, C. L. (2010). Focus on form and its effect on Taiwanese EFL college students' learning of past tense verbs. Journal of Meiho University, 29(2), 63-90.
Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners' beliefs about language learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation, UMI Dissertation Services).
Yang. (2013). The Effects of Inductive and Deductive Grammar Instruction: A Comparative Analysis (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=NG0QRo/search#XXX
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