输入强化对高中生学习和掌握英语习语之影响实证研究

【摘要】 近年来,为了使课堂输入更加有助于学生的二语习得,研究者们开始探究操控和强化课堂输入会带来的显性影响和隐性影响。本实证研究以Alanen(1995),Sayuri(2000),Izumi(2002)和Kim(2003)为参考,通过改进实验设计,意在考察三种不同的输入强化模式对高中生二语学习中注意和掌握英语习语产生何种影响。三种不同的输入强化模式为书面强化、输入阐释以及背诵。本研究试图回答以下两个研究问题：(1)输入强化在吸引学习者对英语习语的注意和促进学习者掌握英语习语两方面是否比普通教学方式更加有效?(2)书面强化、输入阐释以及背诵这三种输入强化模式中,哪一种输入强化模式能最有效地促进学习者对英语习语的即时习得和最终掌握?被试是湖南一所普通高中高三的学生。本实验涉及该校228名学生。其中210名受试者经过前测之后被任意地分配为四个小组：书面强化组阅读己将目标习语进行加粗字体处理的文章；输入阐释组阅读包含目标习语的具体阐释的文章；背诵组被先要求背诵一些习语(包含目标习语)及其释义,然后阅读既无书面强化也无输入阐释的文章；控制组只读既无书面强化也无输入阐释的文章(包含目标习语)。整个实验由预实验、前测、输入、即时关注测试、即时习得测试、最终习得测试几个部分组成。受试在各次测试中的成绩被输入SPSS13.0进行对比分析,最终结论如下：(1)三种输入强化模式对学习者注意和最终掌握英语习语均产生了明显的促进效果；(2)背诵在促进学习者对英语习语的注意和即时习得方面明显优于输入阐释和书面强化；输入阐释在促进学习者对英语习语的最终掌握方面优于背诵和书面强化；书面强化虽然在吸引学习者注意目标习语方面具有促进作用,但是在促进学习者对目标习语的最终习得方面并没有起到预先设想的作用。最后,作者从输入的明确度、目的语特点、学习者有限的注意力资源和信息处理等方面对实验结果进行了分析和解释。最后阐述了本研究在理论和教学上的启示,指出了本研究的局限性并对以后的研究提出了一些建议。
 
【关键词】 输入强化； 注意； 习得； 习语；

Chapter One Literature Review

1.1 Relevant Studies on the Noticing Effects of Input Enhancement
This section intends to review the previous studies which havedemonstrated both positive and negative effects of different types of inputenhancement techniques on noticing the target linguistic item. Although theoretical assumptions are useful for providing insightsinto SLA, it is only through empirical studies that they are validated. Sofar, a large amount of empirical research has been carried out in order toclarify the roles of input enhancement techniques in promoting learners'noticing of the target linguistic forms. Some studies reviewed as the following yielded results that supportpositive effects of Textual Enhancement on grammar learning (Doughty,1991; Shook, 1994; Alanen, 1995; Jourdenais et al.，1995; White, 1998).However, the remaining failed to reach the same conclusion (Leow, 1997,2001; Jourdenais, 1998; Izumi, 2002; Leow et al., 2003; Overstreet, 1998,2002; Wong, 2003). Some researchers pointed out that TextualEnhancement alone might not be sufficient for interlanguagedevelopment and argued that other supplementary instructional elementsshould be added to this technique.In 1994，Shook examined the effects of Textual Enhancement ofgrammatical information on learners' intake of two linguistic items, withrespect to the Spanish present perfect as well as the relative pronouns que/quien. 125 second and fourth-semester college students participatedin the study. To begin with, they were divided into two groups: the firstgroup was exposed to the intact text while the second received the sametext but with the target linguistic items highlighted by typographicalcues (uppercasing and bolding). Exactly, the exposure lasted less than anhour, after which a multiple-choice recognition task and a writtenfill-in-blank production were used to measure subjects' intake. As theresult shows, the data collected at the end of the treatment indicated asignificant out-performance of the enhanced group over the unenhancedgroup on all the evaluation tasks.
………..

1.2 Relevant Studies on the Acquisition Effects of Input Enhancement
There are many claims in the SLA literature that researches hasfound Input Enhancement instruction beneficial. Those researchersadvocate the Noticing Hypothesis as ecidence for their argument.However, in order to support such claims, we must go for a study to showthat benefits are not restricted to be period immediately followingthe instruction. Otherwise the benefits may be "knowledge temporarilyretained at a conscious level but not fully acquired" in the words ofLightbown et al.(1980: 166). This knowledge is distinct from actualknowledge of language, as shown in studies that tested learners both onfollow-up tasks and in more natural, uncontrolled contests (Fuller, 1978;Pica, 1985; Ellis, 1987; McDonald et al., 1987; Kadia, 1988; Green andHecht, 1992; Frantzen, 1995). In each of the studies, performancedropped significantly (even dramatically) with a switch from artificial,nonspontaneous situations to normal spontaneous use.Thus, learners' success in the noticing tests does not necessarilyimply that they have acquired actual knowledge of language. The needfor long-term follow-up is brought up by studies that found benefitsimmediately following instruction but none when follow-up testing wasdone (Lightbown et al., 1980; Lightbown, 1983; 1985; 1987; Weinert,1987; Harley, 1989; White, 1991),These results indicate a failure ofinstruction to affect the underlying language system, a failure that wasonly apparent some days after instruction was completed, so the need forfollow-up is clear.

………..

Chapter Two Theoretic Basis

2.1 The Input Hypothesis
As we all know, input has played an important role in SLA. SusanGass (1997), a famous scholar in SLA theory and research, believes thatthe concept of input is probably the single most important concept of SLAand no individual can learn L2 without input of some sort. As a matter offact, "no model of SLA does not avail itself of input in trying to explainhow learners create L2 grammars" (Gass, 1997, p.l). Toady, all theoriesin SLA research consider input an important role in how learners generatelinguistic systems. As one of the important theoretical constructs in SLA,input has been accorded an important explanatory variable in L2development.Several aspects of input have been explored in the SLA literature:comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), incomprehensible input (L. White,1987), apperceived input and comprehended input (Gass, 1988)，revealing the importance of input comprehension in SLA.With respect to input research in SLA, it is the Input Hypothesis,proposed by Stephen Krashen, that has been most influential and receivedmost attention. The Input Hypothesis states that "humans acquirelanguage in only one way, by understanding messages, or by receiving'comprehensible input'...We move from i, our current level, to i+1, thenext level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i+1"(Krashen, 1985, p.2). It claims that exposure to comprehensible input isboth necessary and sufficient for second language learning to take place.
………….

本文编号：8799