口頭隱含指正回饋的類型對於台灣小學生英語發音的效用
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2011
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
隨著越來越多研究探討「隱含式的著重形式教學」（implicit focus on form instruction），本研究旨在檢視與比較兩個不同隱含指正回饋類型（重鑄 recasts和澄清詢問clarification requests）對台灣小學生某個語音單位（無聲齒間音th）的發展。本研究採取僅後測設計；實驗對象為三十六位來自溝通式教學環境（政大實小）的小學生，基本上沒有英語溝通的問題。這些受試者被隨機地分派到其中一個組別，並在溝通活動中接受不同的隱含指正回饋類型（沒有隱含指正回饋、重鑄、澄清詢問）。實驗開始前一星期，受試者填寫英語學習相關問卷以確保他們在放學後的英語學習行為具同質性；此外，受試者還參與診斷測驗以確認他們無法正確地發出「標的語音」（target sound item）。在實驗期間，受試者完成兩個溝通式活動、回溯的口頭報告和立即後測；口頭報告的目的為檢視是否受試者察覺到隱含指正回饋與標的語音的存在。實驗結束後三天，受試者完成和立即後測完全相同的延宕後測。為了探討三組間是否因為不同的隱含指正回饋類型而展現出不同的學習成效，本研究利用了單因子變異數分析和獨立t檢定以達成研究目的。
研究結果顯示隱含指正回饋在立即與延宕後測中均促進了標的語音的正確性。此結果可歸因於選擇一個明確的語言形式（a specific linguistic form）和對這個形式持續提供指正回饋（consistent treatments），而這樣的實驗設計促使受試者注意到指正回饋與標的語音的存在並使他們較能針對有問題的語音作修正。然而，不同的隱含指正回饋類型，無論在立即或延宕測驗中，均沒有對標的語音的正確性產生顯著不同的效果（澄清詢問原本假設會產生較重鑄更顯著的成效因為前者不會直接提供正確的語言形式而是要求受試者自行修改有問題的發音，如此以來受試者可能比較會注意到「指正」回饋和有問題的語音）。此結果受到受試者之前的英語學習經驗和任務型態（task-type effect）的影響。本研究發現這些受試者在原本的英語學習環境中就常接收到「重鑄」這個指正回饋，因此他們對此回饋類型的敏感性很強；此外，一些接收重鑄為指正回饋類型的受試者在立即與延宕測驗時接收來自研究者不經意的指正回饋，因此相較於其他受試者，他們也許在後測中特別注意到標的語音的存在。由於以上的原因，關於澄清詢問與重鑄這兩個隱含指正回饋類型的成效與注意力分配（attentional distribution）的假設並未獲得證明。
根據本研究結果，隱含指正回饋對語音學習所產生的成效和各式各樣的因素有所關聯，像「如何執行隱含指正教學」和「學習者對隱含指正回饋的認知」，而這些發現也為未來的研究提供了相關的啟示與建議。
With regard to research into implicit focus on form instruction, the present study examines and compares the effects of two implicit corrective feedback types (recasts and clarification requests) on the development of the phonological unit (the voiceless th sound) in child L2 learners of English in Taiwan. This study was a posttest-only control group research design that recruited thirty-six students from a communicative language teaching/learning context (The Affiliated Experimental Elementary School of National Chengchi University). Hence, these students had no problems communicating with others in the target language within meaningful contexts. The thirty-six participants were randomly assigned to one control group or one of the experimental groups, each receiving different implicit corrective feedback types during communication (no implicit corrective feedback, recasts, or clarification requests). One week before the treatment, the participants filled in language background questionnaires to ensure their English learning after school was homogeneous; moreover, the participants received a diagnostic test to confirm that they had difficulty producing the target sound item accurately. During treatment, the participants performed two information-gap tasks, each followed by a retrospective verbal report to examine their awareness of the implicit corrective feedback and target sound item and another similar information-gap task as the immediate posttest. Three days after the treatment, the participants performed the same tasks again as those in the immediate posttests. One-way ANOVA and the independent t test were employed to investigate the differences among the three groups in terms of the immediate uptake and short-term memory of the target sound item. The results show that implicit corrective feedback facilitated the accuracy of the target form production on both the immediate and delayed posttests. This situation can be attributed to the choice of a specific linguistic form and consistent treatments on this form, which encouraged the participants to notice the implicit “corrective” feedback and problematic form and modify their output. However, different implicit corrective feedback types did not result in differential effects on the accuracy of the target form production on both the immediate and delayed posttests (Clarification requests were assumed to demonstrate significantly better effects than recasts because the former withheld correct models and pushed learners to modify output. To avoid communication breakdown, those who received clarification might better notice its corrective function and the problematic sound item.). This finding may be confounded by the participants’ previous English learning experience and a task-type effect. The participants had frequently received recasts on their linguistic errors in their original English-learning context, which increases their sensitivity to this feedback type. Moreover, some participants in the recast group were unexpectedly provided with corrective feedback during post-task performance, which may focus learner attention on the target sound item. Due to these factors, the assumption that those receiving clarification requests might have better chance to notice the target form than those receiving recasts was not justified. Based on the present findings, the effects of implicit corrective feedback on the phonological learning interact with various factors, such as the way implicit focus on form instruction is implemented and L2 learners’ perception of implicit corrective feedback. These findings also provided related implications and suggestions for future research.
With regard to research into implicit focus on form instruction, the present study examines and compares the effects of two implicit corrective feedback types (recasts and clarification requests) on the development of the phonological unit (the voiceless th sound) in child L2 learners of English in Taiwan. This study was a posttest-only control group research design that recruited thirty-six students from a communicative language teaching/learning context (The Affiliated Experimental Elementary School of National Chengchi University). Hence, these students had no problems communicating with others in the target language within meaningful contexts. The thirty-six participants were randomly assigned to one control group or one of the experimental groups, each receiving different implicit corrective feedback types during communication (no implicit corrective feedback, recasts, or clarification requests). One week before the treatment, the participants filled in language background questionnaires to ensure their English learning after school was homogeneous; moreover, the participants received a diagnostic test to confirm that they had difficulty producing the target sound item accurately. During treatment, the participants performed two information-gap tasks, each followed by a retrospective verbal report to examine their awareness of the implicit corrective feedback and target sound item and another similar information-gap task as the immediate posttest. Three days after the treatment, the participants performed the same tasks again as those in the immediate posttests. One-way ANOVA and the independent t test were employed to investigate the differences among the three groups in terms of the immediate uptake and short-term memory of the target sound item. The results show that implicit corrective feedback facilitated the accuracy of the target form production on both the immediate and delayed posttests. This situation can be attributed to the choice of a specific linguistic form and consistent treatments on this form, which encouraged the participants to notice the implicit “corrective” feedback and problematic form and modify their output. However, different implicit corrective feedback types did not result in differential effects on the accuracy of the target form production on both the immediate and delayed posttests (Clarification requests were assumed to demonstrate significantly better effects than recasts because the former withheld correct models and pushed learners to modify output. To avoid communication breakdown, those who received clarification might better notice its corrective function and the problematic sound item.). This finding may be confounded by the participants’ previous English learning experience and a task-type effect. The participants had frequently received recasts on their linguistic errors in their original English-learning context, which increases their sensitivity to this feedback type. Moreover, some participants in the recast group were unexpectedly provided with corrective feedback during post-task performance, which may focus learner attention on the target sound item. Due to these factors, the assumption that those receiving clarification requests might have better chance to notice the target form than those receiving recasts was not justified. Based on the present findings, the effects of implicit corrective feedback on the phonological learning interact with various factors, such as the way implicit focus on form instruction is implemented and L2 learners’ perception of implicit corrective feedback. These findings also provided related implications and suggestions for future research.
Description
Keywords
隱含式的著重形式教學, 重鑄, 澄清詢問, 語音學習, 注意力包含, 注意力分配, implicit focus on form instruction, recast, clarification request, phonological learning, attentional involvement, attentional distribution