高中英文教科書之使役動詞結構：分析與建議

English Causative Verb Constructions in Senior High English Textbooks: Analyses and Proposals

陳佩瑩(Pei-ying Chen)

指導教授 ： 張武昌教授

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2006年)

摘要

中文摘要

本研究旨在檢視高中英文課本提供使役動詞教與學的內容，並且提供教科書編者以及英文老師具體建議以達到有效的使役動詞教學。首先，本研究採內容分析法(content analysis)探討三套高中英文課本以及教師手冊對於使役動詞結構的呈現、練習以及解釋。本研究進而透過準實驗研究法(quasi-experiment)，深入探究此三套教材是否能夠有效提升學生對於使役動詞結構的學習。研究對象為兩班共七十六名高二學生，一班為對照組，另一班則為實驗組。對照組接受的使役動詞教學，係依照本研究所分析的教材內容而設計，教學重點著重形式(form)的講解以及練習。實驗組則是施以強調語意(meaning)以及語用(use)的使役動詞教學。本研究使用前後測設計(pre-post-test design)探討這兩種教學法的效益。
內容分析結果顯示此三套課本對於使役動詞的呈現、練習以及解釋有所不足之處：(1) 版本A 以及B傾向同時呈現不同的使役動詞結構，卻未提供解釋說明其語意以及用法的差異性，(2) 所有版本的課本僅提供單句例句(sentence-level examples)，(3) 版本A 以及B過度強調句型結構練習，(4) 版本A 以及B中的使役動詞文法練習與課文之間的連結性仍有待加強之處。另外，這三套課本所搭配的教師手冊皆無提供完整的資料，幫助高中英文老師有效地介紹使役動詞結構的意思以及用法。上述缺失很有可能導致學生對於使役動詞的意思以及使用兩層面的了解不足。
本研究對象的前後測表現反映出上述缺失對於使役動詞結構學習的負面影響。對照組不論在使役動詞教學前或是後，都無法順利地依照語意以及語境選出最適當的使役動詞。另一方面，實驗組接受使役動詞教學後，卻能在設計為使役動詞意思以及用法的後測試題上，展現顯著的進步，更以顯著之成績優於對照組。這些研究結果顯示這三套課本以及教師手冊無法有效提升學生使役動詞語意以及用法的學習，據此教材應納入語意以及語用的解釋。
另外，前後測結果也顯示句型結構練習雖可有效增進對照組學習較不熟悉的使役動詞句型結構，卻無法更進一步增進該組對於較熟悉的句型結構的學習(如使役動詞make let以及have後加原形動詞)。因此，對於學生較為熟悉的句型結構，高中英語教材應著重其語意以及用法方面的解釋以及練習。
根據分析結果，本研究提供具體的教學建議，以其未來高中英語教材能夠有效提升學生對於使役動詞的了解以及正確使用。

關鍵字

高中英文教科書 ； 英文使役動詞結構 ； 文法教學 ； 內容分析

並列摘要

ABSTRACT

This study aims to examine causative verb constructions in senior high English textbooks and to provide pedagogical suggestions for textbook writers and language teachers. A content analysis was conducted to evaluate three sets of senior high textbooks (Textbook A, B and C) and their accompanying teacher’s manuals with regard to the presentation, practice and explanations of causative verb constructions. A quasi-experiment was further conducted to ascertain the effectiveness of the textbook series and teacher’s manuals in promoting the learning of the form, meaning and use of causative verb constructions. Two intact classes of 76 second-year senior high students participated in this study, with one class as the control group and the other as the experimental group. The control group was given an instructional treatment designed on the basis of the material that the three textbook series and teacher’s manuals provide for causative verb structures. The instructional focus was primarily on the explanations and practice of the form of causative verb constructions. On the other hand, the experimental group was given an alternative instructional treatment, which focused on the meaning and use of causative verb constructions. A pre-post-test design was used to probe into the effectiveness of the two types of causative verb instruction.
The results of the content analysis revealed several inadequacies in the textbook series, including (1) simultaneous presentation of causative verb constructions in Textbook A and B, with no functional explications provided, (2) presentation of sentence-level examples in all the textbook series, (3) overemphasis on structural pattern drills in Textbook A and B, and (4) inconsistencies between causative verb constructions presented and practiced in the grammar activities and those occurring in the textbook reading and conversation texts in Textbook A and B. Moreover, the teacher’s manuals accompanying the three textbook series were found to be deficient in linguistic information on the semantic and pragmatic features of causative verb constructions. These inadequacies are likely to result in senior high students’ inadequate knowledge of causative structures in terms of meaning and use.
The results from the quasi-experiment confirmed the negative consequences of the inadequacies observed in the textbooks and teacher’s manuals. The control group performed poorly on the test items designed for meaning and use before and after the instructional treatment. On the other hand, the experimental group not only made significant progress in the posttest items for meaning and use but also significantly surpassed the control group in this regard. These findings suggest that the textbooks and teacher’s manuals are not effective in enhancing the learning of causative verb constructions in terms of meaning and use. This defect can be effectively addressed by providing students with sufficient functional explanations of the target causatives.
The results from the quasi-experiment also demonstrate the effectiveness of structural pattern drills in promoting the learning of the formal features of more recently introduced causative verb constructions, i.e. those of the make + O + p.p., have + O + p.p., get + O + to V and get + O + p.p. structures. This finding suggests that senior high students can benefit from judicious use of structural pattern drills of the forms they are less familiar with. On the other hand, such drills are not effective in further enhancing students’ learning of the forms they are familiar with, i.e. those of the make + O + V, have + O + V and let + O + V structures. Therefore, more instructional attention should be given to their meanings and uses.
Based on the research findings, some pedagogical implications are provided for textbook writers and language teachers.

並列關鍵字

Senior High English Textbooks ； English Causative Verb Constructions ； Grammar Instruction ； Content Analysis

參考文獻

張麗麗 (Chang, L. L.)，2005，〈從使役到致使〉，《台大文史哲學報》，第六十二期，頁119-152。

Altenberg, B. & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), 173-195.

Ariew, R. (1982). The textbook as curriculum. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 11-33). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.

Baron, N. S. (1974). The structure of English causatives. Lingua, 33, 299-342.

Baron, N. S. (1977). Language acquisition and historical change. Amsterdam; New York : Elsevier North-Holland.