输入加工教学法和传统教学法对于中国高中生习得英语非真实条件句效果的对比性研究

论文摘要

本文对比研究了输入加工教学法和传统教学法对于高中一年级学生在课堂环境中学习非真实条件句的效果。输入加工教学法是VartPatten（1996）基于可理解性输入和注意在输入加工和二语习得发展中的重要作用而提出的。输入加工教学法,以语言输入为特征,目的是通过改变学习者的加工策略来更好地促进语言的吸收和意义-形式的正确连接。而传统的以产出为特征的教学法,包括语言规则的解释和紧随其后的输出性练习。输入和输出在二语习得中的作用一直都是二语习得的理论家和实践者争论的问题之一。本文试图在这一背景下,选取输入加工教学法和传统教学法为代表,对输入和输出的作用进行进一步地研究。共有96名高一年级的中学生参加了为期四周的实验。受试者被随机分为两个实验组和一个控制组。一个实验组用输入加工教学法来教授目标语法结构。而另一个实验组用传统教学法学习同样的内容。控制组的受试者没有接受与目标语法有关的任何教学方法。教学活动开始前的一周,三个组学生参加前测。之后,实验组的学生分别接受各自的教学方法。课堂上的教学过程分两个学时完成。学时结束时,三个组的学生参加即时性后测。两周后,参加延时性后测。三次测试的题型有解释性练习和输出性练习两种。通过对这三次测试中的题型和教学效果持续性的分析,得出以下两个重要结论:第一,输入加工教学法在促进语言理解和语言输出上优于传统教学法。这与VanPatten最初建构的输入加工教学法理论不谋而和,再一次证明了输入在二语习得中起的重要作用。第二,传统教学法不仅能够促进语言输出而且有利于语言理解。这一结果明晰了输出在二语习得的作用,肯定了注意在促进正确的形式和意义连接上的重要作用。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• 摘要
• Abstract
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Appendix
• Abbreviations
• Chapter One INTRODUCTION
• 1.1 Roles of input and output in SLA
• 1.2 Significance of the study
• 1.3 The purpose of the study
• Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW
• 2.0 Overview
• 2.1 The Role of input in SLA
• 2.1.1 Input hypothesis
• 2.1.2 Criticisms on the input hypothesis
• 2.2 The role of consciousness in second language learning
• 2.2.1 Different views on the role of consciousness
• 2.2.2 Noticing hypothesis
• 2.3 Input processing （IP）
• 2.3.1 Input processing
• 2.3.2 Processes of form-meaning connections
• 2.4 Processing instruction （PI）
• 2.5 The role of output in SLA
• 2.5.1 Output Hypothesis
• 2.5.2 An integrated model of SLA in Output Hypothesis
• 2.5.3 One output-based instruction—the traditional instruction （TI）
• 2.6 Comparative studies of PI and TI
• 2.6.1 Empirical studies of PI and TI
• 2.6.2 Limitations of previous researches
• Chapter Three METHODOLOGY
• 3.0 Overview
• 3.1 Research questions
• 3.2 Subjects
• 3.3 The target structures
• 3.3.1 The Classification of if-conditionals
• 3.3.2 Reasons for selecting the unreal if-conditionals as the target structures
• 3.4 The teaching material
• 3.5 Treatments
• 3.5.1 Traditional instruction
• 3.5.2 Processing instruction
• 3.5.3 Summary
• 3.5.4 The control group
• 3.6 Assessments
• 3.7 Treatment procedures
• Chapter Four RESULTS
• 4.0 Overview
• 4.1 Results of the interpretation tasks
• 4.2 Results of the production tasks
• 4.3 Results of time effect
• 4.5 Results of the item types
• 4.5.1 Results of the hypothetical unreal if-conditionals
• 4.5.2 Results of the counterfactual unreal if-conditionals
• Chapter Five DISCUSSIONS
• 5.1 Instructional effects of TI, PI and the control group
• 5.2 Discussion on the results of the processing instruction
• 5.3 Discussion on the results of the traditional instruction
• 5.4 Summary
• Chapter Six CONCLUSION
• 6.1 Summary of the study
• 6.2 Pedagogical implications
• 6.3 Limitations of the study
• 6.4 Suggestions for further research
• References
• Appendix A: Traditional instruction （1） —Hypothetical unreal conditionals
• Appendix B: Traditional Instruction （2） --Counterfactual unreal conditionals
• Appendix C: Processing Instruction （1） —Hypothetical unreal conditionals
• Appendix D: Processing Instruction （2） —Counterfactual unreal conditionals
• Appendix E: Pretest
• Appendix F: Immediate posttest
• Appendix G: Delayed posttest
• Appendix H: Raw scores for TI group in the pretest
• Appendix I: Raw Scores for Tl group in the immediate posttest
• Appendix J: Raw scores for Tl group in the delayed posttest
• Appendix K: Raw scores for PI group in the pretest
• Appendix L: Raw Scores for PI group in the immediate posttest
• Appendix M: Raw scores for PI group in the delayed posttest
• Appendix N: Raw scores for the control group in the pretest
• Appendix O: Raw scores for the control group in the immediate posttest
• Appendix P: Raw scores for the control group in the delayed posttest