- 學位論文
英文冠詞之可授性及兩種冠詞教學法成效之比較研究
On the Teachability of the English Article System and the Efficacy of Two Types of Article Instruction
摘要
摘要 英文中的冠詞長久以來一直被認為是英文文法中相當複雜的一部分，也因此是許多老師和學生所認為英文中最難學習的文法內容之一。在台灣，傳統的文法教學多仰賴文法書中的陳述，教授英文冠詞亦是如此。然而傳統的英文文法書上對於冠詞的介紹，主要是列舉出許多使用上的規則，讓學生一一背誦。這種訴諸於記憶的教學法常常成效不彰，引來諸多老師及學生們的抱怨。冠詞之所以困難，主要是本身在結構和使用上的複雜性。英文冠詞除了一字多義之外，用法上的重疊和許多不規則的用法都是造成學習困難的因素。正因為如此，有些學者並不認為冠詞是可以透過文法教學來傳授的，因為要教的規則太多也太複雜了。然而，在Master 1994年和2002年的研究中顯示，儘管冠詞如此具有挑戰性，透過有系統的文法教學，還是可以讓學生在使用冠詞的正確性上有顯著的提升。可惜的是，Master在他的研究中只測試了短期的教學成效，而無法証明教學的效果是否能夠持續。因此，本研究在探討英文冠詞的可授性中，特別做了兩次的後測，以瞭解教學成效的持久度，並為了突破傳統的文法教學窠臼，根據先前的研究，提出了另一套以統整概念為導向的教學法，與傳統的文法教學做一比較分析。本實驗的研究問題有兩點： 1. 英文冠詞是否可教？ 更明確地說，學生在冠詞的使用上是否可以透過有系統的教學而產生顯著的進步？ 2. 以統整概念為導向的教學法教授冠詞是否比傳統的教學法對學生更有幫助？ 本實驗研究對象為桃園某高中高三學生共三班，每班約40人。其中兩班分別接受以不同的教學法教授冠詞，另外一班則不教授冠詞。教授期間為5個星期，共做三次測驗(前測，第一次後測和第二次後測)，三次測驗內容完全相同，且兩次後測間隔5個星期。實驗結果如下： 1. 接受冠詞教學的兩組學生在第一次後測時與前測時的表現做比較，皆有顯著的進步，且成效皆持續至第二次後測時。而無接受冠詞教學的一組直到第二次後測時，才有顯著的進步。可見，有系統的冠詞教學可以幫助學生加速學習。換言之，冠詞是可以教授的。 2. 組間的比較分析顯示，就學生的進步程度而言，以統整概念為導向的教學法優於傳統的教學法，傳統的教學法又勝於完全仰賴語言接觸的自然學習方式。 最後，本研究針對文獻中對於文法教學是否有效的爭論，根據本實驗結果提出討論，並對未來英文冠詞教學方式及研究提供建議。
並列摘要
Abstract Research in the literature has clearly demonstrated that the English article system poses great challenge to non-native learners. The evidence came from studies exploring the sophistication and acquisition of the system as well as studies analyzing learner errors concerning article use. Drawing on the results derived from grammar instruction, some researchers suggest that conscious learning is efficient only when the rules are simple. In this sense, the article system, with its intrinsic complexity, is not teachable by focusing on forms. However, studies undertaken by Master (1994, 2002) yielded positive findings from systematic article instruction, which contradicted previous suggestions. Still, Master’s findings were not convincingly affirmative, because in the two experiments, only short-term effects were assessed. The current study, thus, aims at investigating the teachability of the English article system and the efficacy of two types of article instruction: traditional instruction vs. generalization-oriented instruction with an evaluation of longer-term effect. The experiment was administered to three intact groups of EFL senior high school students in Taiwan, whose native language was Chinese. One group received instruction based on a traditional grammar book. Another group received generalization-oriented instruction based on a new pedagogical grammar proposed by the researcher, focusing on the four crucial concepts underlying article choice. The third group received no instruction at all. All three groups took the identical article cloze test for three times as the pre-, post- and delayed posttests. The results showed that both of the instructed groups significantly improved on the posttest, but retention was found only in the group receiving generalization-oriented instruction. As for the uninstructed group, inconsistency of performances on the three tests was observed, indicating a probability of chance taking. The findings of the present study provide evidence in favor of systematic article instruction, which proves to be effective in raising students’ consciousness about article use. In addition, the excellence of the generalization-oriented group over the traditional group lends support to the claim made by Stutterheim and Klein (1987) that teaching concepts is more beneficial than directly focusing on forms when teaching certain aspects of grammar. Last but not least, the divergent results yielded from the two types of instruction may also provide a plausible explanation to the conflicting findings reported in earlier investigations into form-focused instruction. The current findings suggest that it is inappropriate to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of form-focused instruction based on the specific types of instruction exploited in certain studies in the literature. A more reasonable question to be asked is: What type of form-focused instruction is effective? In other words, this thesis argues that it is the actual practice rather than the focus on forms that makes or does not make the difference.