输入强化和纠错反馈对中学生习得英语被动语态的影响

论文摘要

形式和意义历来是语言教学争论的焦点。传统的语法翻译法只注重语言形式,而强势交际教学法（如浸入法）则只注重语言意义。有大量的研究和教学实践表明,单一地以形式或意义为纲是有失偏颇的,应该寻求二者的融合。Long, Long & Robinson, Doughty & Williams, Ellis, Spada等人提出并倡导“意义形式兼顾（FonF）”的教学理念便体现了形式和意义的结合。“意义形式兼顾”是和“只注重语言形式”、“只注重语言意义”相对应的,是在把学生的主要注意力集中在意义或交际的前提下,在必要时偶然、临时地引导学生聚焦于语言形式。在第二语言教学环境中更多的是如何从“只注重语言意义”向“意义形式兼顾”发展,而在外语教学环境中,比如中国,更多的是如何从“只注重语言形式”向“意义形式兼顾”发展。但无论如何,“意义形式兼顾”提供了二/外语教学的合理的理论阐释,代表了二/外语教学的趋势,并有大量的理论和实证研究表明“意义形式兼顾”广泛并有效地应用于二语/外语教学。本研究在“意义形式兼顾”的框架下,探索“意义形式兼顾”在我国外语环境下的实现方式。具体来说,本论文研究输入强化（作为前摄的“意义形式兼顾”和正面证据）和纠错反馈（作为反应的“意义形式兼顾”和负面证据）对英语作为外语的中国中学生习得英语被动语态的影响。论文有三个研究问题:1)输入强化对习得外语语言形式（本论文中为过去时态的被动语态）有什么影响?2)纠错反馈对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?3)输入强化和纠错反馈结合在一起对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?本研究采用前测-后测-延迟后测的实验设计,以甘肃陇西碧岩中学四个完整班的147个初三学生为被试,采用理解强化任务、重述任务、整体听写任务和诱导产出任务为实验材料,用语法判断、限制性结构产出和自由写作为测量工具,研究学生对过去时被动语态的习得。根据需要,本研究选择四个初三班级作为被试,分为四个组:输入强化组、纠错反馈组、输入强化+纠错反馈组、控制组,提出三个研究假设:1)与控制组相比,输入强化组更能帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;2)与控制组和输入强化组相比,纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;3)与单独的输入强化组和纠错反馈组相比,输入强化+纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态。研究结果支持了所有的三个研究假设,表明输入强化和纠错反馈都有助于学生习得语言形式,但纠错反馈比输入强化效果更好,而两者的结合使用比单个使用更有益。通过该研究进一步表明,作为正面证据的输入强化本身并不能保证学生习得语言形式,作为负面证据的纠错反馈是必需的。基于该实证研究,本文倡导在我国外语教学中实施体现FonF理念的教学。在实际教学中,教师可以用前摄的FonF的手段（比如输入强化）提前对那些较难的语言形式做些必要的有助于促进学生习得的准备,而在教学过程中教师要善于运用各种反应的FonF的手段,给学生提供各种纠错反馈.此外,FonF的教学理念可以理想地融合到任务型教学中,因此,教师应该设法将教学整合到各种任务当中,尤其是能够促进学生注意和练习目的形式的任务,比如结构性输出任务、理解性任务和协作产出任务.

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Abbreviations
• 1. Introduction
• 1.1 Rationale
• 1.2 Research Questions
• 1.3 Defining the Constructs
• 1.4 Outline of the Thesis
• 2. Literature Review
• 2.1 Previous Studies on Input Enhancement Abroad
• 2.2 Previous Studies on Corrective Feedback Abroad
• 2.2.1 Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback
• 2.2.2 Specifications of the Similar Studies with the Present Research
• 2.3 Studies in China
• 2.4 About the Present Study
• 2.5 Summary
• 3. Theoretical Framework
• 3.1 Focus on Form （FonF）
• 3.1.1 Focus on Form, Focus on Forms and Focus on Meaning
• 3.1.1.1 Focus on Form
• 3.1.1.2 Focus on Forms
• 3.1.1.3 Focus on Meaning
• 3.1.2 Underpinnings of FonF
• 3.1.2.1 Noticing Hypothesis
• 3.1.2.2 Rationale for FonF
• 3.1.2.3 Cognitive Underpinnings of FonF
• 3.1.3 Different Specifications of FonF
• 3.1.3.1 Doughty and Williams’Taxonomy of FonF
• 3.1.3.2 Ellis’Taxonomy of FFI
• 3.1.4 Positive Evidence, Negative Evidence and FonF
• 3.2 Input, Interaction and Output
• 3.2.1 Input Hypothesis
• 3.2.2 Output Hypothesis
• 3.2.3 Interaction Hypothesis （IH）
• 3.2.3.1 Early Version of IH
• 3.2.3.2 Updated Verion of IH
• 3.2.4 Input Processing Model
• 3.2.4.1 Input Processing （IP）
• 3.2.4.2 Processing Instruction （PI）
• 3.3 Theoretical Basis for the Present Study
• 3.4 Summary
• 4. Methodology
• 4.1 Research Hypotheses
• 4.2 Variables
• 4.3 Participants
• 4.4 Target Form
• 4.5 Instructional Materials
• 4.6 Test Instruments
• 4.7 Treatment Procedures
• 4.7.1 Pilot Study
• 4.7.2 Instructional Procedures
• 4.8 Data Collection
• 5. Data Analysis and Results
• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 The Overall Effect of Instructional Treatment
• 5.2.1 The Result of Total Scores
• 5.2.2 The Result of MJR Scores
• 5.2.3 The Result of CCR Scores
• 5.2.4 The Result of FR Scores
• 5.2.5 Summary of the Overall Effect of Instructional Treatment
• 5.3 The Simple Main Effect of Instruction
• 5.3.1 The Result of Pretest
• 5.3.2 The Simple Main Effect of Instruction on Posttest
• 5.3.2.1 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for Total Scores on Posttest
• 5.3.2.2 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for MJR Scores on Posttest
• 5.3.2.3 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for CCR Scores on Posttest
• 5.3.2.4 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for FR Scores on Posttest
• 5.3.3 The Simple Main Effect of Instruction on Delayed Posttest
• 5.3.3.1 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for Total Scores on Delayed Posttest
• 5.3.3.2 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for MJR Scores on Delayed Posttest
• 5.3.3.3 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for CCR Scores on Delayed Posttest
• 5.3.3.4 The Result of Post-hoc Comparisons for FR Scores on Delayed Posttest
• 5.3.4 Summary of the Simple Main Effect of Instruction
• 5.4 Hypothses Testing for the Present Study
• 5.5 Summary of Results
• 6. Discussion and Conclusion
• 6.1 Introduction
• 6.2 Discussion of Results
• 6.2.1 The Effect of IE
• 6.2.2 The Effect of CF
• 6.2.3 The Effect of IE + CF
• 6.3 Conclusion
• 6.4 Pedagogical Implications
• 6.5 Limitations and Orientations for Future Research
• References
• Appendix I Treatment Materials for CC and CF Group
• Appendix II Treatment Materials for IE and IE + CF Group
• Appendix III Test Paper for Pretest
• Appendix IV Test Paper for Posttest
• Appendix V Test Paper for Delayed Posttest
• Appendix VI Examples of Corrective Feedback in the Present Study
• Acknowledgements