互动任务意识提升式语法教学——初中互动交际英语语法教学实证的研究（可编辑） 20页

互动任务意识提升式语法教学——初中互动交际英语语法教学实证的研究硕士学位论文M.D.ThesisInteractiveTask-consciousnessRaisingGrammarTeachingMethod?GrammarInstructioninJuniorCommunicativeEnglishClassroom互动任务-意识提升式语法教学??初中互动交际英语语法教学实证研究宫盈盈GongYingyingContents独创性声明i?Abstractii?摘要iv?ListofTablesvi?ListofAbbreviations.vii?ChapterOneIntroduction1?1.1BackgroundoftheStudy1?1.2PurposeandSignificanceoftheStudy4?1.3ResearchHypothesis5?1.4OutlineoftheThesis5? ChapterTwoLiteratureReview6?2.1Grammar6?2.2MajorLanguageTeachingMethodandInfluenceonGrammarTeaching7?th2.2.119c.7?2.2.21940-50s.9?2.2.31960-70s10?2.2.41970-80s10?2.3StudiesofGrammarTeachingMethodsinCommunicativeContextAbroad.12?2.3.1EnhancedInput12?2.3.2InteractionalFeedback.13?2.3.3ProcessingInstruction14?2.3.4ExplicitConsciousnessRaisingTask16?2.4GrammarTeachinginChina19?ChapterThreeTheoreticalFoundations21?3.1FocusonForm21?3.1.1TheDefinitionofFocusonForm21?3.1.2ClassificationsofFocusonForm21?3.2NoticingHypothesis.233.3InteractionHypothesisandOutputinInteraction.25? 3.3.1InteractionHypothesis.25?3.3.2OutputandComprehensionintheContextofInteraction.26?3.4ExplicitKnowledgeandImplicitKnowledge.27?3.4.1ExplicitandImplicitKnowledge27?3.4.2TheInterfacebetweenImplicitandExplicitKnowledge28?ChapterFourResearchMethodology30?4.1InteractiveTask-ConsciousnessRaisingGrammarTeachingMethod30?4.1.1PrinciplesofthePresentMethod30?4.1.2CharactersofthePresentMethod31?4.1.3ProceduresofthePresentMethod31?4.2Methodology32?4.2.1ResearchHypothesis.32?4.2.2Subjects33?4.2.3Instruments.33?4.2.4Procedures35?4.2.5DataCollectionandAnalysis39?ChapterFiveResultsandDiscussions40?5.1ResultsofConstrainedConstructedResponses.40?5.1.1PassiveVoice.40?5.1.2AttributiveClause41?5.1.3ModalVerbs42? 5.1.4SummaryofResultsofThreeTestsonCCR43?5.2ResultsofFreeResponses44?5.2.1PassiveVoice.44?5.2.2AttributeClause44?5.2.3ModelVerbs45?5.2.4SummaryofResultsofThreeTestsonFR.46?5.3discussionsofResults.46?5.3.1FindingsfromResultsofTestshypothesis1-346?5.3.2FindingsfromtheInterviewhypothesis448?ChapterSixConclusion50?6.1Conclusion50?6.2PedagogicalImplications50?6.3Limitations51?Bibliography.viii?AppendixITreatmentMaterialsforExperimentalGrouppassivevoicexvi?AppendixIITreatmentMaterialsforExperimentalGroupattributeclausexviii?AppendixIIITreatmentMaterialsforExperimentalGroupmodalverbsxx?AppendixIVTestPaperforpretestpassivevoice.xxii?AppendixVTestPaperforposttestpassivevoicexxiv? AppendixVITestPaperforDelayedposttestpassivevoicexxv?AppendixVII访谈提纲xxvii?AcknowledgementsxxviiiAbstractDuringthecourseofdevelopmentofforeignlanguageteaching,grammarteachinghasgonethroughmanyupsanddowns.Inthisprocess,grammarplaysanindispensableroleinforeignlanguagelearning,sothegrammarteachingoccupiesanimportantpositioninforeignlanguageteaching.Traditionalgrammar-basedlanguageteachingmethodexclusivelyfocusesonlanguageforms,whilethecommunicative-basedteachingmethodsolelyfocalizesonmeaning.Lotsofstudiesandteachingpracticeindicatethatfocusingonlanguageformsormeaningaloneisinsufficient,instead,weshouldseektheintegrationoftheformsandmeaning.Long,Robinson,Doughty,Williams,Ellis,Spada,etc.refertothisintegrationas‘FocusonFormFonF’.FonFintendstodrawsstudents’attentionovertlytolinguisticformsastheyariseincidentallyinlessonswhoseoverridingfocusisonmeaningorcommunication.FonFcanprovideanacceptablerationaleforforeignlanguagegrammar teachingandrepresentsthetrendofforeignlanguageinstruction.Inaddition,numeroustheoreticalandpedagogicalstudiesshowthatFonFareusedwidelyandefficientlyinforeignlanguageteaching.Andmanyresearchersputforwardalotofgrammarteachingmethodsincommunicativecontents,includingEnhancedInput,ProcessingInstruction,ExplicitConsciousnessRaisingTask.Theyallsuggestedthatstudentsshouldusetheforminauthentictask.Applyingtaskstogrammarteachingcanarousethestudents’interestinlearninggrammarandletthemmakeconnectionbetweenformandmeaningWithintheframeworkofFonF,thisthesisintendstoinvestigatethespecificmeansinteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodtoimplementsuchteachingapproachforChinesejuniorstudentsinEnglishclassroomandtoexplorethefeasibilityandeffectivenessofthisapproachthroughexperimentandinterview.Thepresentstudyemploysapretest-immediateposttest-delayedposttestexperimentaldesign,andtheparticipantsofthepresentstudyare56studentsfromfourjuniormiddleschoolswhomtheresearchertaughtinatrainingschoolinNanJing.Theywererandomly assignedtotwointactgrammarclassesatthesimilarlevel,whereoneisexperimentalgroupandtheotheriscontrolgroup.TheexperimentalgroupacceptstheInteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodandthetreatmentconsistsofthreetasks:Consciousness-Raisingoutputtask,InputEnhancementtask,Communicativetasks.ThecontrolgroupacceptstraditionalPPPgrammarteachingmethod.ThetestinstrumentsincludeconstrainedconstructedresponsesmultiplechoicesandfreeresponsesIntheend,theresultsoftheexperimentimply:1Instructionhasapositiveeffectonthedevelopmentofinterlanguagegrammar;2Thepresentmethodismoreeffectiveinmoredifficultgrammar;3Thepresentiimodelismorecommunicativeorientated;4TheresentmodelhasaLongeffectonlearningofthethreetargetgrammarpassivevoice;attributiveclause;modalverbs;5Thepresentmodelcanimprovestudents’interestsinlearninggrammar.Theresultsofthestudypartlysupportallthefourhypotheses.Hypothesis1:Theinteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodwillimprovethejuniorstudents’learningof passivevoice.Hypothesis2:Theinteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodwillimprovethejuniorstudents’learningofattributiveclause.Hypothesis3:Theinteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodwillimprovethejuniorstudents’learningofmodalverbs.Hypothesis4:Theinteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodwillimprovethejuniorstudents’interestinlearninggrammarBasedonthepresentstudy,thisthesisadvocatesfortheInteractiveTask-ConsciousnessRaisinggrammarteachingmethod.Itenablesstudentstousethethreetargetformspassivevoice;attributiveclause;modalverbsmorefreelyandcorrectlyandtohelpimprovestudents’interestingrammarlearning.Thecurrentstudyhasputforwardatentativeexplanationfortheeffectoftheinteractivetask-consciousnessraisinggrammarteachingmethodinlanguageteaching,buttherearealsosomelimitations.Thisstudyisonlyconductedinashortperiodoftime,whichcannotshowthedevelopmentofthelearners.Andthesmall-scaleofthestudymakestheresultsofthestudynottypicalandpersuasiveenough.Accordingly,theabove limitationsshouldbenoticedandmodifiedinthefurtherresearchKeywords:grammarteaching;FocusonForm;Interactivetask;consciousnessraisingiii摘要在外语教学的发展历程中,语法教学经历了多次的起落。从这个不断更新的演变过程来看,语法在语言学习中一直扮演着不可或缺的角色,所以语法教学在外语教学中也占据着举足轻重的地位。然而,语法教学的现状并不理想,人们对如何教授语法这个问题长期以来无法达成共识。传统的语法翻译法只注重语言形式,而强势交际教学法则只注重语言意义。有大量的研究和教学实践表明,单一地以形式或意义为纲是失偏颇的,应该寻求二者的融合。Long,Long&Robinson,Doughty&Williams,Ellis,Spada等人提出并倡导“意义形式兼顾(FonF)”的教学理念便体现了形式和意义的结合。“意义形式兼顾”是在把学生的主要注意力集中在意义或交际的前提下,在必要时偶然、临时地引导学生聚焦于语言形式。“意义形式兼顾”提供了外语教学的合理的理论阐释,代表了外语教学的趋势,并有大量的理论和实证研究表明“意义形式兼顾”广泛并有效地应用于外语 教学。在此框架下,有很多学者提出了交际课堂中语法教学的方法,例如,输入强化,过程教学法,外显意识提升任务.学者们建议让学生在真实的任务中运用所学语法,这样可以提供学生学习语法的兴趣同时让他们在脑海中建立起语言和形式的联系。本研究在“意义形式兼顾”的框架下,探索一种糅合的语法教学法??互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法在我国初中英语语法教学中的应用,并通过实验和访谈的方法对这一方法的可行性和有效性进行探索。本研究采用前测-后测-延迟后测的实验设计,以江苏南京某个培训学校的两个语法班共54名初中学生为被试,分为实验组和控制组。实验组学生接受互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法,采用意识提升任务,理解强化任务、和真实交际任务为实验材料。控制组接受传统的PPP语法教学模式。用历年中考真题中关于被试语法的选择题和自由讨论话题为测量工具,研究学生对被动语态,定语从句和情态动词的习得。最后,实验和访谈结果表明:1)语法教学会对学生中介语语法的发展产生积极的影响;2)互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法在教授较难语法时效果好于传统语法教学法;3)互动任务-意识提升 式语法教学法更能帮助学生在真实交际中使用所学语法;4)互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法能够帮助学生牢固的掌握所学语法;5)互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法能够提高学生对语法学习的兴趣。研究结果部分支持了四个研究假设,假设1:互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法可以提高初中学生对被动语态的学习;假设2:互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法可以提高初中学生对定语从句的学习;假设3:互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法可以提高初中学生对情态动词的学习;假设4:互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法可以提高学生学习语法的兴趣。总之,鉴于该实证研究,互动任务-意识提升式语法教学法在初中英语语法教学中具有可行性,iv并且更能使学生在交际表达中使用语法项目而且有助于提高学生语法学习的兴趣。但是,本研究仍然有许多不足之处。本研究只在很短的时间内进行,不能跟踪学习者的学习发展情况。并且研究样本较小,研究结果不够典型和有说服力。因此,在以后的研究中,应注意到上述限制,并加以修改关键词:初中英语语法教学意义形式兼顾互动任务意识提升vListofTablesFigure1TheDifferencebetweenPIandTraditionalInstructionadaptedfromGass&Selinker,200116 Figure2Consciousness-RaisinginLanguageLearningSmith,198117Figure3TheProceduresofthePresentMethod32Table1TypesofForm-FocusedInstructionEllis,200222?Table2PrincipalIncidentalFocus-on-FormOptionsEllis,200223?Table3CharacteristicsofDistinguishingExplicitandImplicitKnowledgeR.Ellis2005a:15128?Table4TheThreePhrasesoftheTreatment36?Table5ResultsofIndependentSampleTTestforCCRScoresofPassiveVoice.40?Table6ResultsofPairedSampleTTestforCCRscoresofpassivevoice41?Table7ResultsofIndependentSampleTTestforCCRScoresofAttributiveClause.41?Table8ResultsofPairedSampleTTestforCCRScoresofAttributeClause.42?Table9ResultsofIndependentSampleTTestforCCRScoresofModalVerbs42?Table10ResultsofPairedSampleTTestforCCRScoresofModelVerbs43?Table11ResultsofIndependentSampleTTestforFRScoresofPassiveVoice44?Table12ResultsofIndependentSampleTTestforFRScoresof AttributeClause44?Table13ResultsofIndependentSampleTTestforFRScoresofModelverbs45viListofAbbreviationsCLTCommunicativeLanguageTeachingMethodCCRConstrainedConstructedResponsesCCControlGroupECExperimentalGroupEFLEnglishasForeignLanguageFLTForeignLanguageTeachingFRFreeResponsesFonFFocusonformIPInputProcessingPIProcessingInstructionSLASecondLanguageAcquisitionSLSecondLanguageviiChapterOneIntroductionChapterOneIntroduction1.1BackgroundoftheStudyGrammarteachingisalwaysoneofthehottesttopicsinsecondlanguageacquisitionandlanguageteaching.AconsiderationofL2teachingoverthepastfewdecadesrevealsafundamentalshiftinthe teachingofgrammarfromoneinwhichgrammarinstructionwascentral,tooneinwhichgrammarinstructionwasabsent,andtotherecentreconsiderationofthesignificanceoftheroleofgrammarinstruction.Formanyyears,languageteachingwasequatedwithgrammarteaching.Itwasbelievedthatlanguagewasmainlycomposedwithgrammarrulesandthatknowingtheseruleswouldbesufficientforlearnerstoacquirethelanguage.Thiswasthoughttobegrammar-basedlanguageteachingmethod,inwhichlearningasecondorforeignlanguagewasseenasaprocessoflearningdiscreetgrammarknowledgeClassroomcontentswereorganizedmainlybasedonanalyzeoflanguageformswithlittlefocusonlanguagefunctionsandreal-lifecommunication.However,inthissituation,studentsknowtherulesofgrammarbutdon’tknowhowtousethelanguagewhichtheyhavebeenlearnedformanyyears.Sothisteachingmethodiscriticizedformanyreasons,themostseriousissueisthatalanguagewhetherfirstorsecondlanguagecan’tbeacquiredbylearningpiecesofinsolateditems,itfollowsdevelopmentalpatternsthatareregularandsystematicinwhichlearnerdonotoftenlearn grammaticalstructureintheorderpresentedbytheteacheranditshouldbeusedinauthenticsituationsandithasitsowndevelopmentalsequencesTheemergenceofCLTin70sopposesthetraditionalwayofgrammarteachingandfocusesonmeaningwithlittleformofgrammarteaching.Thecommunicative-basedlanguageteachingclaimsthatlearningaL2isbestachievedbyusingitforcommunicationbutnotasanobjectofstudy.Andexposingstudentstolargequantitiesofpositiveinputthatiscomprehensibleandmeaningfulissufficientforlanguageacquisition.Grammarisacquiredimplicitlyorincidentallythroughcommunication,formalgrammarteachingisabandoned.Krashenproposedtheinputhypothesisin80swhichsuggestedthatlikechildlearningtheirfirstlanguage,SLAcanoccurifthelearnergotenoughcomprehensiveinput.Exposedtolargequantitiesofpositiveinput,L2learnerscanassimilatetheserulesintotheirinterlanguagesystemwithoutgrammarinstruction.Grammarinstructioncannotchangetheorderofacquiringtheknowledgeof language,sotheformalinstructionandgrammarteachingisnothelpfulGrammarteachingwhichgetsitsinterestagainisduetothelesseffectiveofCLT.Byexploitingthe1InteractiveTask-consciousnessRaisingGrammarTeachingMethod?GrammarInstructioninJuniorCommunicativeEnglishClassroomeffectivenessof“emergences”learning,Swain1985andhiscolleaguefoundthatthoughthelearneremergedinalotofcomprehensibleinput,theycan’tusesomegrammarrulecorrectly.SotheybelievedthattheeffectivewaytoimprovetherateofcorrectiveofusingthegrammarruleistolearnitbyinstructionPienemann1984madeanempiricalresearchonEnglishSLlearnerwhosefirstlanguageisGerman,andfoundthatthoughtheorderofacquisitionofthegrammaritemscouldnotchange,itcanspeedtheacquisitionorderthoughinstructionRecentresearchinsecondlanguageacquisitionhasleadtoareconsiderationoftheimportanceofgrammar.Languageteachingprofessionalshavebecomeincreasinglyawarethatgrammarinstructionplaysanimportantroleinlanguageteachingandlearning.Thereareanumberofreasonsforthisevaluationof theroleofgrammar.First,inthepasttwentyyears,mostclassroomempiricalstudyfoundthatgrammarteachinginclassroomgreatlyinfluentSLA.ThisevidencecomesfromalargenumberofstudiesandextensivereviewsofstudiesontheeffectsofinstructionR.Ellis,1990,1994,2001,2002a;Larsen-Freeman&Long,1991;Long,1983,1988,1991.Long1983statedthatgrammarinstructioncontributesimportantlytolanguagelearning.Forexample,studiesoftheeffectsofinstructiononthedevelopmentofspecificformse.g.,Doughty,1991;Lightbown,1992;Lightbown&Spada,1990andstudiesofcorrectivefeedbackonlearnererrorsCarroll&Swain,1993;Nassaji&Swain,2000indicatethatinstructionasfeedbackhasasignificanteffectonaccuracy.Arecentreviewof49studiesontheeffectivenessofL2instructionNorris&Ortega,2000concludedthatexplicitinstructionresultsinsubstantialgainsinthelearningoftargetstructureswhencomparedtoimplicitinstructionalone,andthatthesegainsweredurableovertimeSecond,grammarinstructionhaseffectsontheorderandsequenceof acquisition.R.Ellis1990,1994,1997,2001,2002a,N.Ellis1995,andLarsen-FreemanandLong1991suggestedthat,whileinstructedlanguagelearningmaynothavemajoreffectsonsequencesofacquisition,ithadfacilitativeeffectsonboththerateandtheultimatelevelofL2acquisition.Pienemann1984,1988,1999developedwhathasbeenknownastheteachablehypothesis.Basedonthishypothesis,itwaspossibletoinfluencesequencesofdevelopmentfavorablythroughinstructionifgrammarteachingcoincideswiththelearner’sreadinesstomovetothenextdevelopmentalstageoflinguisticproficiencyLightbown,2000.N.Ellis’sarticlereiteratedtheseviews,claimingthatlanguageacquisitioncanbespeededbyexplicitinstructionand,somewhatmorecontentiously,thatwithoutanyfocusonformorconsciousnessraising,formal2ChapterOneIntroductionaccuracyisanunlikelyresult”p.175Asbasedontheseresearches,researchersandteachershadnewideasaboutgrammarandgrammarteaching.Researchersandeducatorshaverecentlycometorealizethatadoptingasingle-sidedteachingapproachthatiseithercommunicative-basedorgrammar-based,isnot aseffectiveandefficientascombiningofthetwo.ThisnewtrendhasemergedinwhatLong1991referstoas‘FocusonForm’FonFinstructionwhichtrytointegratemosteffectivelyafocusongrammaticalformsandafocusonmeaningfulcommunicationinL2classroom.Manyresearchers,suchasDoughty,suggestedthatthisinstructioncanleadtoimprovedmasteryoflanguagefeaturesaswellastheprovisionformeaning-focuseduseofthetargetlanguage.Ellis2003recommendedconsciousnessraisingtaskapproachtogrammarinstruction;itiscommunicativeandhasanL2grammarproblemasthetaskcontent,usingatasktypewhichprovideslearnerswithgrammarproblemstosolveinteractively.Althoughthelearnersfocusontheformofthegrammarstructure,theyarealsoengagedinmeaning-focuseduseofthetargetlanguageastheysolvethegrammarproblem.HosseinNassaji&SandraFotos2011examinesthevariousinstructionaloptionsforimplementinggrammarinstructionincommunicativelanguageclassroom.HowevertherearestillmanyquestionsabouthowtoteachgrammareffectivelyWhileinchina, Englishistaughtasforeignlanguage,mostofteachersarenotnativespeakers;formalinstructionstillexitsandmayhaveneverlefttheclassroom.SinceEnglisheducationisthebasisofeducationsinjuniormiddleschoolsanditisrelatedtotheextentofstudents’masteryofEnglishknowledge,theteachingofEnglishgr