在贵阳学院非英语专业大学生中进行的句型模仿写作明示教学

论文摘要

模仿教学法的使用在语言教学中已有很长的历史。在中国外语教学界,已存在一些关于在写作教学中使用范文模仿和词块模仿的研究。然而,关于在课堂教学环境中使用句型模仿教学法进行写作教学方面的实验研究却很少。本文报告了一项由90名中路贵阳学院非英语专业一年级大学生参加的实证研究,其日的在于检验句型模仿教学法在非英语大学写作教学中的作用。本文提出以下两个问题：(1)句型模仿教学法能使非英语专业大学生在写作中通过输出更多带有现成句型的句子从而提高句型输出的多样性吗?(2)句型模仿教学法能使非英语专业学生在实际写作中降低与所学的句型有关的句法和词法错误的发生吗?为了回答以上问题,本文采用非等值控制组实验设计,利用了贵阳学院两个自然班：物理07电信(2)班和计算机07软件(2)班分别作为实验组和控制组进行了实验。两班各有48人和42人进入实验数据分析。本文采用了问卷调查和对两个组的前测和后测作为实验的工具。问卷调查用于了解学生的高考英语成绩以及了解学生是否接受过句型模仿教学。前测及学生的英语高考成绩用来确保实验组和控制组的学生在实验前在英语水平,尤其是英语写作水平上拥有相同的能力。前测和后测格式和难度一致,分别由16个单句汉译英和一篇100字左右的作文构成。实验设计中,句型模仿法是自变量,前测和后测的成绩为因变量。实验步骤中,实验组采用句型模仿法,控制组采用传统教学法,两个班的教师是同一个人,教学课时和教学环境基本保持一致。两个班均采用明示教学的方式。实验前后所测分数用SPSS软件进行配对样本t检验和独立样本t检验。针对问题一,配对样本t检验证明：在使用实验中所教授过的句型的频度上,实验组在后测中比在前测中有显著的进步。而且,独立样本t检验还表明,尽管在前测中实验组和控制组没有明显差异,但是在后测中两者异显著。具体地说,在后测中,实验组的学生,即运用句型模仿法的学生,在写作上明显更多地使用教授过的句型模式来输出句子,而控制组的学生则没有如此明显的变化。针对问题二,配对样本t检验表明,实验组在后测中比在前测中在输出相关句型中所犯的句法和词法错误明显减少。控制组只是在句法错误的减少上有明显变化。本文建立在科学实验的基础上(不排除实验无法避免的不可控因素对实验效果的影响),所以其研究及结果对贵州省乃至全国的大学英语教师在EFL写作教学的理论和实践具有一定的参考价值,同时能为进一步的相关研究提供一定的参考。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• Abstract in Chinese
• Abstract in English
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Research Background
• 1.2 Rationale of the Study
• 1.3 Significance of the Study
• 1.4 Objectives of the Study
• 1.5 Definitions
• 1.5.1 Sentence Pattern Imitation
• 1.5.2 Explicit Instruction of Sentence Pattern Imitation
• 1.5.3 Syntactic Errors and Lexical Errors
• 1.6 Oeganization of This Thesis
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Studies of the Method of Imitation in Writing
• 2.2 Studies of Linguistic Patterns
• 2.3 Studies of Explicit Instruction
• 2.4 Studies of Error Correction
• 2.5 Studies of Writing Teaching in China
• 2.6 Summary
• Chapter 3 Methodology
• 3.1 Research Design
• 3.2 Subjects
• 3.2.1 Site Selection
• 3.2.2 Subject Sampling
• 3.3 Teaching Materials
• 3.3.1 Teaching Materials for EG
• 3.3.2 Teaching Materials for CG
• 3.4 Teaching Method
• 3.5 Implementation of the Experiment
• 3.5.1 Teaching Time and Teaching Contents for EG
• 3.5.2 Teaching Time and Teaching Contents for CG
• 3.6 Data-collection
• 3.6.1 Pretest
• 3.6.2 Posttest
• 3.6.3 The Evaluating Criterions for the Pretest and the Posttest
• 3.7 Data Analysis
• 3.8 Summary
• Chapter 4 Results and Discussion
• 4.1 Answers to Research Question One
• 4.1.1 Comparison of Employing Sentence Patterns in Pretest between EG and CG
• 4.1.2 Comparison of Employing Sentence Patterns between Pretest and Posttest within EG
• 4.1.3 Comparison of Employing Sentence Patterns between Pretest and Posttest within CG
• 4.1.4 Comparison of Employing Sentence Patterns in Posttest between EG and CG
• 4.1.5 Conclusion about Research Question One
• 4.2 Answers to Research Question Two
• 4.2.1 Comparison of Syntactic and Lexical Error Occurrence in Pretest between EG and CG
• 4.2.2 Comparison of Syntactic and Lexical Error Occurrence between Pretest and Posttest within EG
• 4.2.3 Comparison of Syntactic and Lexical Error Occurrence between Pretest and Posttest within CG
• 4.2.4 Comparison of Syntactic and Lexical Error Occurrence in Posttest between EG and CG
• 4.2.5 Conclusion about Research Question Two
• 4.3 Summary
• Chapter 5 Conclusions
• 5.1 Main Findings of the Research
• 5.1.1 Findings from Research Question One
• 5.1.2 Findings from Research Question Two
• 5.2 Implications
• 5.2.1 Theoretical Inplications
• 5.2.2 Pedagogical Implications
• 5.3 Limitations
• 5.4 Suggestions for Future Studies
• Bibliography
• Appendixes
• Appendixes Ⅰ Pretest
• Appendix Ⅱ Posttest
• Appendix Ⅲ Classification of Some Frequently Used English Sentence Patterns
• Appendixes Ⅳ Curriculum for EG
• Appendix Ⅴ Curriculum for CG
• Appendix Ⅵ Answers for Reference to Pretest and Posttest
• Appendix Ⅻ Raw Data of EG and CG's NMET Scores and Pretest and Posttest Results
• Appendix Ⅷ Recalculated Numbers of CG and EG's Syntactic and Lexical Errors against 100 Sentences in Pretest and Posttest
• 附录