English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49358/84020 (59%)
Visitors : 7276419      Online Users : 76
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/30009


    Title: The effectiveness of processing instruction on teaching indirect wh-questions: a case study of university freshman
    Other Titles: 輸入訊息處理教學法對學習英語間接疑問詞問句的成效:以大一學生為例
    Authors: 邱以冠;Chiu, Yi-kuan
    Contributors: 淡江大學英文學系碩士班
    范瑞玲;Fahn, Rueih-liring
    Keywords: 輸入訊息處理教學法;間接問句;processing instruction;input;indirect wh-question
    Date: 2007
    Issue Date: 2010-01-10 23:16:31 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本論文主要研究輸入訊息處理教學法與傳統教學法對文法學習的成效差異。輸入訊息處理教學法是由學者Bill VanPatten所提出,主要強調藉由針對學習者所獲得的訊息給予有效的處理可使學習者在學習新的語言時能有更好的學習效率。 相對來說,由於傳統式教學法著重在文法練習,並未對學習者一開始所接觸到的新訊息做有效的處理,因此有可能會降低學習成效。 本論文的主要目的就在於證明輸入式教學法能提供學習者較好的學習成效,以作為傳統式教學法的一個替代選擇。受試者是三班大一學生,所學習的文法是英文的間接問句。依照班級分為輸入式教學組,傳統式教學組,而另一組不接受任何教學作為對照組。學生於教學後分別接受兩次測驗,兩次測驗當中都包含理解與造句測驗來檢視學生的學習成效。結果顯示,輸入式教學法的成效在理解與造句測驗上皆優於傳統
    式教學法,並對學生在長期記憶上有較好的影響。
    The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Processing Instruction on grammar learning, compared with Traditional Instructions. Processing Instruction,proposed by Bill VanPatten, focuses on learners’ input and is able to let learners have better form-meaning connections to learn a new language more efficiently. On the contrary, Traditional Instruction emphasizes more on output practice, which is the last stage of the learning. The target structure of the present study was indirect wh-questions. The subjects were from three language drills classes in a private university located in northern Taiwan. They were divided into three different groups: one received Processing Instruction, another one received Traditional Instruction, and the other one received no instruction to be the control group. An immediate posttest and a delayed posttest were conducted to assess the effect of different instructions. Both posttests consisted of a comprehension task and two types of production tasks. The results showed that PI group performed better than TI group in both comprehension and production tasks. In terms of the long-term effect, PI group also showed better performance than TI group. To conclude, Processing Instruction had better effect than Traditional Instruction on both comprehension and production tasks and also showed its superiority on long-term effect.
    Appears in Collections:[英文學系暨研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    0KbUnknown250View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback