運用意識提升英語文法教學於國小外語：文法學習之效益研究

Using Consciousness-Raising Grammar Teaching in EFL Elementary English Class: Effects on English Grammar Learning

張秀穗(Hsiu-Sui Chang)；林妙修(Miao-Hsiu Lin)

意識提升 ； 意識提升文法教學 ； 文法教學 ； 文法學習 ； consciousness-raising ； consciousness-raising grammar teaching ； grammar teaching ； grammar learning

intergrams

14卷1期（2013 / 09 / 01）

a1 - 32

繁體中文

本研究探究意識提升文法教學對臺灣小六生英語未來式句型的學習成效。研究問題為：一，意識提升文法教學對高、低分組學生何者的學習成效較佳？二，研究對象對意識提升文法教學活動之看法為何？研究者對北市公立國小62位小六生施以劍橋兒童英語測驗，將分數在前、後各33%者，選為高分組及低分組，各20人。進行八週，每週兩次意識提升文法教學。以前、後測檢驗其對目標句型的熟悉程度。實驗教學後，以問卷調查研究對象對教學活動看法。結果顯示，各組前、後測成績比較皆達顯著差異，且低分組進步幅度明顯多於高分組，但無法斷言意識提升文法教學活動對低分組有較佳成效。研究對象肯定意識提升文法教學活動。據此，研究者提出教學及研究建議。

This study investigated the effects of consciousness-raising grammar teaching on EFL 6^(th) graders' learning of the English future tense as well as the participants' opinions about consciousness-raising grammar teaching activities. Forty 6^(th) graders, 20 in the high-level group and 20 in the low-level group, participated in the study for 8 weeks, twice a week, receiving consciousness-raising grammar teaching with the same activities. Pre-test and post-test were administered before and after the instruction. A questionnaire concerning consciousness-raising grammar teaching was distributed to gain the participants' views about the activities. Paired sample t test and independent sample t test were used for analysis. The results showed that both high-and low-achievers' performance in the posttest as compared to that in the pretest reached statistical significance. The low-achievers made even more progress than high-achievers; nevertheless, no claim can be made that conscious-raising grammar tasks are more effective for the performance of the low-achievers than the high achievers. Moreover, the participants had positive opinions about consciousness-raising tasks. The findings are in line with the previous studies (Ellis & Fotos, 1991; Fotos, 1993; Hu, 2008; Wang, 2008; Yip, 1994) concering the effecs of consciousness-raising activities.

1. Willis, D. (1997). Second language acquisition. The Student Handbook. CELS at The University of Birmingham..
2. Celce-Murcia, M.(1991).Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching.TESOL Quarterly,25(3),459-480.
3. Celce-Murcia, M.(Ed.)(2001).Teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage.Boston:Heinle & Heinle.
4. Day, R.(Ed.)(1986).Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition.Rowley, MA:Newbury House.
5. Edmondson, W. J.(Ed.)(1997).Language Awareness.Germany:Gunter Narr Verlag.
6. Ellis, R.(1997).SLA Research and language teaching.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
7. Ellis, R.(2006).Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective.TESOL Quarterly,40(1),83-107.
8. Ellis, R.(1984).Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children.Applied Linguistics,5(2),138-155.
9. Ellis, R.(2001).Investigating form-focused instruction.Language Learning,51(Suppl. 1),1-46.
10. Ellis, R.(1993).Talking shop: second language acquisition research: how does it help teachers? an interview with Rod Ellis.ELT Journal,47(1),3-11.
11. Ellis, R.(1990).Instructed second language acquisition: learning in the classroom.Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
12. Ellis, R.(1995).Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching.TESOL Quarterly,29(1),87-105.
13. Ellis, R.(2003).Making an impact: teaching grammar through awareness.Foreign Language Teaching & Research in Basic Education,27(5),43-44.
14. Ellis, R.,Fotos, S.(1991).Communicating about grammar: a task-based approach.TESOL Quarterly,25(4),605-628.
15. Fotos, S.(1993).Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance versus formal instruction.Applied Linguistics,14(4),385-407.
16. Hinkel, E.(Ed.)(2005).Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
17. Hu, Y.(2008).Jiangsu,School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Nanjing Normal University.
18. Kojima, H.(2004).Grammar instruction in the learner-centered EFL classroom.Hirosaki University Repository for Academic Resources,92,101-109.
19. Krashen, S.(1985).The input hypothesis: issues and implications.London:Longman.
20. Mohamed, N.(2004).Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective.ELT Journal,53(3),228-237.
21. Odlin, T.(Ed.)(1994).Perspectives on pedagogical grammar.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
22. Reber, A.,Walkenfeld, F.,Hernstadt, R.(1991).Implicit and explicit learning: indivicual differences and IQ.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,17(5),888-896.
23. Richards, J. C.(Ed.),Renandya, W. A.(Ed.)(2002).Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of current practice.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
24. Rutherford, W.(1987).Second language grammar: learning and teaching.London:Longman.
25. Rutherford, W.(Ed.),Sharwood-Smith, M.(Ed.)(1988).Grammar and second language teaching: a book of readings.Boston:Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
26. Schmidt, R.(1990).The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics,11(2),129-158.
27. Sharwood Smith, M.(1981).Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.Applied Linguistics,2(2),159-169.
28. Sugiharto, S.(2006).Grammar consciousness-raising: research, theory, and application.Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching,2(2),140-148.
29. Wang, Y. P.(2008).Kaohsiung,National Kaohsiung Normal University.
30. Willis, J.(Ed.),Willis, D.(Ed.)(1996).Challenge and change in language teaching.Oxford:Heinemann.
31. 高遠(2007)。增強語法意識，加強語法教學─談大學英語語法教學。外語界，123，15-24。