Students’ Learning Process of Input Processing and Output-enriched Consciousness-raising Instruction
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study provides a qualitative analysis of the production data to discover students learning process of input processing instruction and output-enriched consciousness-raising instruction on the target forms: the English present perfect and past simple tenses. The primary goal of this study is to analyze the learners’ errors on the target forms and to find out their learning processes according to rule difficulty and by levels. The participants of this study are 52 Korean students from a University. The students first took a pretest and received each instruction, and then they took a posttest. A delayed posttest was then administered to the students. The study results did not reveal a difference between the instructional types. The results showed that the most frequent errors of both the target forms were misusing the tenses, which is replacing the English past simple tense for different tenses, “misusing the root verbs”, and “inserting ‘be’”. Specifically, for English present perfect tense, many learners show their lack of knowledge of the past participle form adjoining the auxiliary “have”. Concerning the learners’ level, the low-level learners acquired its meaning first, and then they acquired the form. In contrast, for high-level learners, distinguishing meanings were more difficult than making correct forms for the target forms.
Abstract
This study provides a qualitative analysis of the production data to discover students learning process of input processing instruction and output-enriched consciousness-raising instruction on the target forms: the English present perfect and past simple tenses. The primary goal of this study is to analyze the learners’ errors on the target forms and to find out their learning processes according to rule difficulty and by levels. The participants of this study are 52 Korean students from a University. The students first took a pretest and received each instruction, and then they took a posttest. A delayed posttest was then administered to the students. The study results did not reveal a difference between the instructional types. The results showed that the most frequent errors of both the target forms were misusing the tenses, which is replacing the English past simple tense for different tenses, “misusing the root verbs”, and “inserting ‘be’”. Specifically, for English present perfect tense, many learners show their lack of knowledge of the past participle form adjoining the auxiliary “have”. Concerning the learners’ level, the low-level learners acquired its meaning first, and then they acquired the form. In contrast, for high-level learners, distinguishing meanings were more difficult than making correct forms for the target forms.
참고문헌 (32)
- Collentine, J. G., "Processing instruction and the subjective", Hispania, 81, pp.576~587 (1998)
- Cook, V., "Second language learning and language teaching" (2001), Arnold & Oxford University Press
- DeKeyser, R., "Implicit and explicit learning, In The handbook of second language acquisition", pp.325~326 (2003), Oxford Blackwell publishing
- DeKeyser, R., "Comprehension and production practice, In Form-focused instruction and second language learning", pp.87~80 (2001), Blackwell Publishers
- Doughty, C., "Pedagogical choices in focus on form, In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition", pp.237~259 (1998), Cambridge University Press
- Ellis, R., "Input-based approaches to teaching grammar : A review of classroom-oriented research", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, pp.64~80 (1999)
- Ellis, R., "SLA research and language teaching" (2001), Oxford University Press
- Ellis, R., "Investigating form-focused instruction, In Form-focused instruction and second language learning", pp.13~14 (2001), Blackwell
- Ellis, R., "Grammar teaching – practice or consciousness-raising?, In Methodology in language teaching", pp.167~174 (2002), Cambridge University Press
- Ellis, R., "Second language acquisition" (2003), Oxford University Press
- Farley, A. P., "The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction on L2 acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive", 박사, pp.2000
- Forsyth, W., "Grammar activities 2" (1995), Heinemann
- Gary, J., "Why speak if you don't need to? The case for a listening approach to beginning foreign language learning, In Second language acquisition research: issues and implications" (1978), Academic Press
- Hashemi, L., "English grammar in use supplementary exercises" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Hedge, T., "Teaching and learning in the language classroom" (2011), Oxford University Press
- Hutchinson, T., "Lifelines" (1997), Oxford University Press
- Hwang, J. B., "L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs under implicit and explicit learning conditions", English Teaching, 54, pp.145~176 (1999)
- 황종배, "How to Apply Focus-on-Form Techniques to Korean EFL Classroom", Foreign Languages Education, 11(3), pp.85~101 (2004), 한국외국어교육학회
- Dong-Ho Kang（Dong-eui University）, "Focus on Form Instructions and L2 Learners’ Instructional Preferences", Foreign Languages Education, 10(1), pp.57~82 (2003), 한국외국어교육학회
- 강동호, "The Differential Effects of Focus-on-form Instructions on EFL Learners` Grammar Learning.", 영어교육연구, 16(1), pp.29~54 (2004), 팬코리아영어교육학회
- Larsen-Freeman, D., "Teaching grammar, In Teaching English as a second or foreign language", pp.251~264 (2001), Heinle & Heinle
- Lightbown, P., "Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, pp.429~448 (1990)
- Lightbown, P., "How languages are learned" (2002), Oxford University Press
- Long, M. H., "Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice, In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition", pp.36~39 (1998), Cambridge University Press
- Murphy, R., "English grammar in use" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Nagata, N., "Input vs. output practice in education software for second language acquisition", Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), pp.23~40 (1998)
- Norris, J., "Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review, In Form-focused instruction and second language learning", pp.157~160 (2001), Blackwell Publishers
- VanPatten, B., "How juries get lung : Problems with the evidenced for a focus on form in teaching", Language Learning, 38, pp.243~260 (1988)
- VanPatten, B., "Input processing and grammar instruction" (1996), Ablex Publishing Corporation
- VanPatten, B., "Explicit instruction and input processing", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, pp.225~241 (1993)
- Yang, Miran, "A Comparison of the Efficacy Between Input-based Instruction and Output-based Instruction in Focus on Form", 영어교육, 59(2), pp.145~164 (2004), 한국영어교육학회
- KyungheeYeo, "The Effects of Dictogloss:A Technique of ‘Focus on Form", 영어교육, 57(1), pp.149~167 (2002), 한국영어교육학회