FonF教學對以英語為外語青年學習者 寫作中使用英語動詞過去式之效益

The Effect of FonF Instruction on Teenager EFL Learners' Use of English Past Tense in Academic Writing

紀昇助(Sheng-Chu Gary Chi)

指導教授 ： 劉宇挺

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系在職進修碩士班/碩士(2012年)

摘要

本研究旨在檢驗三種FonF教學方式：指正性回饋 (CF)，輸入強化 (IE) 及思處指引 (PI) 在三面向的成效。此三面向分別是：(1) 強化高中學生英文寫作－看圖說故事－使用動詞過去式的整體效益；(2) 比較每項教學方式間的相對效益, 以及 (3) 效益的延續性。本項研究於台北艋舺一中實施，160位來自四個班級的高一學生分成四組，一對照組，三實驗組，四組都接受二階段前測，一階段選擇，一階段寫作文，為看圖說故事題型。前測之後, 進入實驗階段，三實驗組接受各教學活動，活動後填寫檢視學生學習期間注意力的問卷。最後，全四組學生接受後測、延遲後測，皆為寫作，題型為看圖說故事。動詞過去式使用的正確率計算後輸入統計軟體分析，使用重複量數雙因子變異數分析、單因子變異數分析、事後分析(Scheffe)以及重複量數單因子變異數分析，數據結果的判讀輔以問卷所顯示的學生接受教學期間意識型中的注意力多寡程度。結果顯示FonF整體有效強化學生對過去式的注意，此發現與指正性回饋大部份的文獻結果吻合，指正性回饋是FonF教學活動的一環，大部份的文獻支持在寫作中使用指正性回饋。在FonF教學方式中，思處指引與指正性回饋成效大於輸入強化，成效延續到了延遲後測。此三項教學方式的成效差異，其中可能的原因為學習者的意識與思辨處理機制，本研究的討論著眼於此。

關鍵字

聚焦形式著重 ； 輸入強化 ； 指正性回饋 ； 思處指引 ； 英文寫作 ； 過去式

並列摘要

This study aimed to examine three Focus on Form (FonF) treatments: corrective feedback (CF), input enhancement (IE) and processing instruction (PI), in terms of (1) the overall efficacy on fostering high school students’ ability in applying the past tense in picture-story writing; (2) the relative efficacy of each treatment after comparison; and (3) the sustainability of the efficacy. Assigned to four groups, 160 first-grade students from four intact classes in First Manka Senior High School first received a two-fold pretest, with multiple choice questions and a picture-story writing task. Conducted next in the treatment session were the treatments of the three pedagogical activities and a post intervention where students filled out a questionnaire, for the purpose of examining learner noticing. Finally, there were a posttest and a delayed posttest, both of which contained a picture-story writing task. Accuracy ratio was accounted for and analyzed, using a two-way repeated-measure ANOVA, and a one-way ANOVA, followed by Scheffe post-hoc analysis. The interpretation of the outcome was complemented by the responses from the questionnaires, which elicit learner responses that reflect the extent of awareness involved. The finding showed that FonF pedagogical treatments as a whole were facilitative of enhancing learners’ awareness of the target language form, which echoes CF literature, which is itself a form of FonF pedagogical treatment, and most of which favored the conduction of corrective feedback in writing instruction. Among the FonF pedagogical treatments, PI and CF were more effective than IE, with the efficacy sustained in the delayed post test. The differences among the three FonF treatments can be accounted for by the factor, among possible others, of learner awareness and processing mechanism involved.

並列關鍵字

FonF ； input enhancement ； corrective feed back ； processing instruction ； EFL writing ； English past tense

參考文獻

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Human memory: Decoding and storage. In J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and its implications (pp. 170-200). New York: Worth

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451-480.

Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-226). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118