Effects of Input Processing and Output-enriched Consciousness-raising Instruction on Learning Different Types of English Verb Forms
2
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The goal of this study is to explore an effective grammar teaching method by investigating the effects of two form-focused instruction techniques, i.e., input processing (IP) instruction and output-enriched consciousness-raising (CR) instruction. Specifically, this study examines which one of these techniques promotes Korean students’ acquisition of English simple past and present perfect. The participants in this study are 52 university students in their first year. The students first took a written pretest and received grammar instruction in pairs or groups, using different techniques: one group with IP instructional methods, and the other with CR instruction. Each treatment was offered to the subjects for two weeks. One week after the treatment, both groups underwent a first written posttest. The findings showed that both instruction techniques were similarly effective in comprehending and producing the target forms in the posttest. Concerning the difficulty of forms, both groups did not have a significant difference in learning both difficult and easy forms. After the first posttest, the learners did not receive any treatment, but only took regular lessons of English reading. In a second delayed posttest, both groups maintained the effects of each instruction. The results of this study indicate that in an EFL context of Korean classrooms where most students are interlanguage speakers, instructing through focus on form in groups or pairs must be effective for learners to have more communicative competence and to develop accurate English grammar at the same time.
Abstract
The goal of this study is to explore an effective grammar teaching method by investigating the effects of two form-focused instruction techniques, i.e., input processing (IP) instruction and output-enriched consciousness-raising (CR) instruction. Specifically, this study examines which one of these techniques promotes Korean students’ acquisition of English simple past and present perfect. The participants in this study are 52 university students in their first year. The students first took a written pretest and received grammar instruction in pairs or groups, using different techniques: one group with IP instructional methods, and the other with CR instruction. Each treatment was offered to the subjects for two weeks. One week after the treatment, both groups underwent a first written posttest. The findings showed that both instruction techniques were similarly effective in comprehending and producing the target forms in the posttest. Concerning the difficulty of forms, both groups did not have a significant difference in learning both difficult and easy forms. After the first posttest, the learners did not receive any treatment, but only took regular lessons of English reading. In a second delayed posttest, both groups maintained the effects of each instruction. The results of this study indicate that in an EFL context of Korean classrooms where most students are interlanguage speakers, instructing through focus on form in groups or pairs must be effective for learners to have more communicative competence and to develop accurate English grammar at the same time.
참고문헌 (18)
- 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), Blackwell
- Ellis, R., "Second language acquisition and language pedagogy" (1992), Oxford University Press
- Ellis, R., "Investigating form-focused instruction. In Form-focused instruction and second language learning", pp.13~14 (2001), Blackwell
- 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
- Hwang, J. B., "How to apply focus-on-form techniques to Korean EFL classroom", Foreign Languages Education, 11(3), pp.85~101 (2004)
- Kang, D. H., "Focus on form instructions and L2 learners’ instructional preferences", Foreign Languages Education, 10(1), pp.57~76 (2003)
- 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" (2001), Blackwell
- Robinson, P., "Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental rule-search conditions, and instructed conditions", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, pp.27~67 (1996)
- Rutherford, W., "Second language grammar: Learning and teaching" (1987), Longman
- Tuz, E., "From controlled practice to communicative activity: Does training transfer? Temple University Japan Research Studies", TESOL, 1, pp.181~204 (1993)
- VanPatten, B., "How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching", Language Learning, 38, pp.243~260 (1988)
- VanPatten, B., "Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research" (1996), Ablex
- VanPatten, B., "Explicit instruction and input processing", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, pp.225~241 (1993)
- Yang, M. R., "A comparison of the efficacy between input-based instruction and output-based instruction in focus on form", English Teaching, 59(2), pp.145~164 (2004)
- KyungheeYeo, "The Effects of Dictogloss:A Technique of ‘Focus on Form", 영어교육, 57(1), pp.149~167 (2002), 한국영어교육학회