输入强化和纠错反馈对中学生习得英语被动语态的影响
|
摘要
形式和意义历来是语言教学争论的焦点。传统的语法翻译法只注重语言形式,而强势交际教学法(如浸入法)则只注重语言意义。有大量的研究和教学实践表明,单一地以形式或意义为纲是有失偏颇的,应该寻求二者的融合。Long, Long & Robinson, Doughty & Williams, Ellis, Spada等人提出并倡导“意义形式兼顾(FonF)”的教学理念便体现了形式和意义的结合。“意义形式兼顾”是和“只注重语言形式”、“只注重语言意义”相对应的,是在把学生的主要注意力集中在意义或交际的前提下,在必要时偶然、临时地引导学生聚焦于语言形式。在第二语言教学环境中更多的是如何从“只注重语言意义”向“意义形式兼顾”发展,而在外语教学环境中,比如中国,更多的是如何从“只注重语言形式”向“意义形式兼顾”发展。但无论如何,“意义形式兼顾”提供了二/外语教学的合理的理论阐释,代表了二/外语教学的趋势,并有大量的理论和实证研究表明“意义形式兼顾”广泛并有效地应用于二语/外语教学。
本研究在“意义形式兼顾”的框架下,探索“意义形式兼顾”在我国外语环境下的实现方式。具体来说,本论文研究输入强化(作为前摄的“意义形式兼顾”和正面证据)和纠错反馈(作为反应的“意义形式兼顾”和负面证据)对英语作为外语的中国中学生习得英语被动语态的影响。论文有三个研究问题:1)输入强化对习得外语语言形式(本论文中为过去时态的被动语态)有什么影响?2)纠错反馈对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?3)输入强化和纠错反馈结合在一起对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?
本研究采用前测-后测-延迟后测的实验设计,以甘肃陇西碧岩中学四个完整班的147个初三学生为被试,采用理解强化任务、重述任务、整体听写任务和诱导产出任务为实验材料,用语法判断、限制性结构产出和自由写作为测量工具,研究学生对过去时被动语态的习得。根据需要,本研究选择四个初三班级作为被试,分为四个组:输入强化组、纠错反馈组、输入强化+纠错反馈组、控制组,提出三个研究假设:1)与控制组相比,输入强化组更能帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;2)与控制组和输入强化组相比,纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;3)与单独的输入强化组和纠错反馈组相比,输入强化+纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态。研究结果支持了所有的三个研究假设,表明输入强化和纠错反馈都有助于学生习得语言形式,但纠错反馈比输入强化效果更好,而两者的结合使用比单个使用更有益。通过该研究进一步表明,作为正面证据的输入强化本身并不能保证学生习得语言形式,作为负面证据的纠错反馈是必需的。
基于该实证研究,本文倡导在我国外语教学中实施体现FonF理念的教学。在实际教学中,教师可以用前摄的FonF的手段(比如输入强化)提前对那些较难的语言形式做些必要的有助于促进学生习得的准备,而在教学过程中教师要善于运用各种反应的FonF的手段,给学生提供各种纠错反馈.此外,FonF的教学理念可以理想地融合到任务型教学中,因此,教师应该设法将教学整合到各种任务当中,尤其是能够促进学生注意和练习目的形式的任务,比如结构性输出任务、理解性任务和协作产出任务.
There is always a dispute between form and meaning in language teaching. Traditional grammar-based syllabus exclusively focuses on language forms, while strong version of communicative-based teaching (e.g. immersion programme) solely focalizes on meaning. Substantive studies and teaching practice indicate that focusing on language forms or meaning alone is insufficient; instead, we should seek the integration of the forms and meaning. Such integration has emerged in what Long, Robinson, Doughty, Williams, Ellis, Spada, etc. refer to as‘Focus on Form (FonF)’, contrasting with‘Focus on Forms’and‘Focus on Meaning’. FonF intends to draws students’attention overtly to linguistic forms as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. In English as second language (ESL) teaching context, there is a need for change from‘focus on meaning’to FonF, whereas in English as foreign language (EFL) context, such as in China, there is a need for change from‘Focus on Forms’to FonF. Anyhow, FonF can provide an acceptable rationale for second/foreign language teaching and represents the trend of second/foreign language instruction. In addition, numerous theoretical and pedagogical studies show that FonF are used widely and efficiently in second/foreign language teaching.
Within the framework of FonF, the present study intends to investigate the specific means to implement such teaching approach for Chinese learners of English in EFL context. Specifically, it attempts to explore the effect of input enhancement (IE) (as positive evidence and planned FonF) and corrective feedback (CF) (as negative evidence and reactive FonF) on acquisition of passive voice by Chinese EFL learners in middle school. There are three research questions in the present study: i) what is the effect of input enhancement on acquisition of foreign language forms (passive voice of simple past tense in the present study)? ii) What is the effect of corrective feedback on acquisition of the target form? iii) What is the effect of input enhancement together with corrective feedback on acquisition of the target form?
The present study employs a pretest - immediate posttest - delayed posttest experimental design, and the participants are 147 students of four intact classes in grade three in Biyan Junior Middle School, at Longxi, Gansu. The treatment consists of four tasks: a comprehension and enhancement task, a retelling task, a dictogloss task and an elicited production task, and the test instruments include metalinguistic judgment responses, free responses and constrained constructed responses. The participants of four intact classes are assigned to four groups, a control class (CC), an input enhancement group (IE group), a corrective feedback group (CF group), and an input enhancement + corrective feedback group (IE + CF group). Correspondingly, there are three hypotheses in the present study: i) participants who receive IE will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than CC group, ii) participants who receive CF will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than those who receive IE, and iii) participants who receive IE + CF will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than those who receive IE or CF alone.
The results of the study support all the three hypotheses, showing that input enhancement and corrective feedback redound to students’acquiring the target form meanwhile corrective feedback is more efficient; yet, the combination of the two is more beneficial than the one alone. The study further confirms that input enhancement as positive evidence is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the learners’acquisition of the target form, and corrective feedback as negative evidence is obligatory.
Based on the present study, this thesis advocates for FonF teaching approach. On the specific operational level, teachers can make necessary facilitating preparation for certain difficult language forms in advance using planned FonF devices, such as input enhancement. Furthermore, teachers should employ various reactive FonF devices and provide diverse corrective feedbacks. In addition, such FonF instruction can be ideally incorporated into task-based language teaching, and the teachers should integrate FonF instruction into various tasks, especially the ones that can promote learners’awareness and practice of target forms, such as structure-based production task, comprehension task and collaborative production task.
本研究在“意义形式兼顾”的框架下,探索“意义形式兼顾”在我国外语环境下的实现方式。具体来说,本论文研究输入强化(作为前摄的“意义形式兼顾”和正面证据)和纠错反馈(作为反应的“意义形式兼顾”和负面证据)对英语作为外语的中国中学生习得英语被动语态的影响。论文有三个研究问题:1)输入强化对习得外语语言形式(本论文中为过去时态的被动语态)有什么影响?2)纠错反馈对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?3)输入强化和纠错反馈结合在一起对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?
本研究采用前测-后测-延迟后测的实验设计,以甘肃陇西碧岩中学四个完整班的147个初三学生为被试,采用理解强化任务、重述任务、整体听写任务和诱导产出任务为实验材料,用语法判断、限制性结构产出和自由写作为测量工具,研究学生对过去时被动语态的习得。根据需要,本研究选择四个初三班级作为被试,分为四个组:输入强化组、纠错反馈组、输入强化+纠错反馈组、控制组,提出三个研究假设:1)与控制组相比,输入强化组更能帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;2)与控制组和输入强化组相比,纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;3)与单独的输入强化组和纠错反馈组相比,输入强化+纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态。研究结果支持了所有的三个研究假设,表明输入强化和纠错反馈都有助于学生习得语言形式,但纠错反馈比输入强化效果更好,而两者的结合使用比单个使用更有益。通过该研究进一步表明,作为正面证据的输入强化本身并不能保证学生习得语言形式,作为负面证据的纠错反馈是必需的。
基于该实证研究,本文倡导在我国外语教学中实施体现FonF理念的教学。在实际教学中,教师可以用前摄的FonF的手段(比如输入强化)提前对那些较难的语言形式做些必要的有助于促进学生习得的准备,而在教学过程中教师要善于运用各种反应的FonF的手段,给学生提供各种纠错反馈.此外,FonF的教学理念可以理想地融合到任务型教学中,因此,教师应该设法将教学整合到各种任务当中,尤其是能够促进学生注意和练习目的形式的任务,比如结构性输出任务、理解性任务和协作产出任务.
There is always a dispute between form and meaning in language teaching. Traditional grammar-based syllabus exclusively focuses on language forms, while strong version of communicative-based teaching (e.g. immersion programme) solely focalizes on meaning. Substantive studies and teaching practice indicate that focusing on language forms or meaning alone is insufficient; instead, we should seek the integration of the forms and meaning. Such integration has emerged in what Long, Robinson, Doughty, Williams, Ellis, Spada, etc. refer to as‘Focus on Form (FonF)’, contrasting with‘Focus on Forms’and‘Focus on Meaning’. FonF intends to draws students’attention overtly to linguistic forms as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. In English as second language (ESL) teaching context, there is a need for change from‘focus on meaning’to FonF, whereas in English as foreign language (EFL) context, such as in China, there is a need for change from‘Focus on Forms’to FonF. Anyhow, FonF can provide an acceptable rationale for second/foreign language teaching and represents the trend of second/foreign language instruction. In addition, numerous theoretical and pedagogical studies show that FonF are used widely and efficiently in second/foreign language teaching.
Within the framework of FonF, the present study intends to investigate the specific means to implement such teaching approach for Chinese learners of English in EFL context. Specifically, it attempts to explore the effect of input enhancement (IE) (as positive evidence and planned FonF) and corrective feedback (CF) (as negative evidence and reactive FonF) on acquisition of passive voice by Chinese EFL learners in middle school. There are three research questions in the present study: i) what is the effect of input enhancement on acquisition of foreign language forms (passive voice of simple past tense in the present study)? ii) What is the effect of corrective feedback on acquisition of the target form? iii) What is the effect of input enhancement together with corrective feedback on acquisition of the target form?
The present study employs a pretest - immediate posttest - delayed posttest experimental design, and the participants are 147 students of four intact classes in grade three in Biyan Junior Middle School, at Longxi, Gansu. The treatment consists of four tasks: a comprehension and enhancement task, a retelling task, a dictogloss task and an elicited production task, and the test instruments include metalinguistic judgment responses, free responses and constrained constructed responses. The participants of four intact classes are assigned to four groups, a control class (CC), an input enhancement group (IE group), a corrective feedback group (CF group), and an input enhancement + corrective feedback group (IE + CF group). Correspondingly, there are three hypotheses in the present study: i) participants who receive IE will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than CC group, ii) participants who receive CF will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than those who receive IE, and iii) participants who receive IE + CF will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than those who receive IE or CF alone.
The results of the study support all the three hypotheses, showing that input enhancement and corrective feedback redound to students’acquiring the target form meanwhile corrective feedback is more efficient; yet, the combination of the two is more beneficial than the one alone. The study further confirms that input enhancement as positive evidence is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the learners’acquisition of the target form, and corrective feedback as negative evidence is obligatory.
Based on the present study, this thesis advocates for FonF teaching approach. On the specific operational level, teachers can make necessary facilitating preparation for certain difficult language forms in advance using planned FonF devices, such as input enhancement. Furthermore, teachers should employ various reactive FonF devices and provide diverse corrective feedbacks. In addition, such FonF instruction can be ideally incorporated into task-based language teaching, and the teachers should integrate FonF instruction into various tasks, especially the ones that can promote learners’awareness and practice of target forms, such as structure-based production task, comprehension task and collaborative production task.
引文
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition [A]. In R. Schmidt (Ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-496.
Doughty, C., (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form [A]. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C] (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: constraints, compensation, and enhancement [A]. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. et al. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis [A]. In R. Schmidt (Ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 183-216). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Doughty, C., &.Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., &. Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., &. Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H., & Burt. M. (1974). Natural sequence in child second language acquisition [J]. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction [J]. Language Learning. 51(Supplement 1), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R. et al. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 35/3, 407-432.
Ellis, R. et al. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons [J]. Language Learning. 51/2, 281-318.
Ellis, R. et al. (2002). Doing focus-on-form [J]. System, 30/4, 419-432.
Fotos, S. (1993). Conscious raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction [J]. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and Second Language Learners [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction [A]. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction Course [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Languages Acquisition [C] (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics, 24/2, 168-196.
Koyanagi, K. (1998). The Effect of Focus on Form Tasks on the Acquisition of a Japanese Conditional‘to’: Input, Output and“Task-essentialness”[D]. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. The University of Georgetown.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon
Krashen, S. (1985).The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Leeman, J. et al. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content basedSpanish instruction [A]. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 217-258). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’comprehension and intake in second language acquisition [J]. Applied Language Learning, 8/2, 151-182.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching [J]. Applied Linguistics, 21/4, 431-462.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S. 2003. Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form [J]. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-345.
Long, M. (1981). Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition [J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Long, M. (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input [J]. Applied Linguistics. 4, 126-141.
Long, M. (1983b). Does instruction make a difference? [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development [A]. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives [C] (pp, 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology [A]. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramasch (Eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective [C] (PP, 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition [A]. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic.
Long, M. & Robinson, R. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology [A]. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning [C]. Vol. 1 (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: MultilingualMatters.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 27/3, 405-430.
Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form [J]. ELT Journal, 57, 130-138.
Miller, P. C. (2003). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: A Meta-analysis [D]. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. University of Purdue.
Muranoi, H. (2001). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classroom [J]. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integration form-focused instruction and communicative integration in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 241-250.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta- analytic review [J]. Language Learning. 51 (Supplement 1): 157-213.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork [J]. Language Learning, 50/1, 119-151.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention [J]. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2/2, 229-258.
Poole, A. B. (2003). Types of Forms ESL Students Focus on in Classroom Group Interaction: A Descriptive Study [D]. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. University of Northern Iowa.
Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory and the noticing hypothesis [J]. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory [A]. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 631-678). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1l/2, 17-46.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C] (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-164.
Seiba, Z. (2001). Classroom Instruction and Second Language Acquisition: The Effect of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction on L2 Learners' Linguistic Competence [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Mississippi.
Shook, J.D. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon [J]. Applied Language Learning, 5/2, 57-93.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner [J]. Second Language Research, 7/2, 118-132.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: a review of classroom and laboratory research [J]. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Spada, N. et al. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation [J]. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.
Stern, H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development [A]. In S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning [A]. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics [C] (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlin, R. & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language classroom [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
VanPtten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Ney Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Input processing: An update [J]. Language Learning, 52/4, 755-803.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’attention: a typographical input enhancement study [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.857-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom [J]. Second Language Research, 7/2, 133-161.
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabus [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form [J]. Language Learning, 49/4, 583-625.
Williams, J. (2001).The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form [J]. System, 29/3, 325-340.
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms [A]. In C. Doughty &. J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.139-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2000). The Effect of Textual Enhancement and Simplified Input on L2 comprehension and Acquisition of Non-Meaningful Grammatical Form [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.
Wu, W. (2005). The Role of Form-Focused Communication Activities in Complex Grammar Learning: The Case of Relative Clauses in Chinese [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
曹玉米,2006,《英语课堂活动中的口语错误反馈》[MA],浙江大学硕士论文。
高强、李艳,2006,国外语言形式教学新近研究进展述评[J],《外语教学》第5期,53-58。
何莲珍、王敏,2004,交际课堂中的形式教学——国外近期研究综述[J],《外语与外语教学》第1期,23-27。
李灵燕,2007,《“输入强化”对中国大学英语学习者目的语形式注意的作用和影响》[MA],兰州大学硕士论文。
施光,2004,《纠错与接纳:中学英语课堂研究》[MA],南京师范大学硕士论文。
孙燕青,2005,第二语言学习中的反馈[J],《心理科学进展》第13卷第1期,156-161。
唐洁仪,2003,《英语课堂上的教师纠错行为对学生语言习得的影响》[MA],华南师范大学硕士论文。
王芳,2005,《在中学外语课堂上语言形式与任务活动的整合》[MA],东北师范大学硕士论文。
张香存,2005,中国大学英语教师对“focus-on-forms”和“focus-on-form”教学方法的认知[J],《外语教学》第3期,65-68。
张雪梅、戴炜栋,2001,反馈二语习得语言教学[J],《外语界》第2期,3-9。
张一平,2006,“Focus on Form”在第二语言教学中的理论和实践[J],《西安外国语学院学报》第4期,43-47。
张莹,2006,《输入加强与输出对于中国英语学习者定语从句习得的影响》[MA],重庆大学硕士论文。
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-496.
Doughty, C., (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form [A]. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C] (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: constraints, compensation, and enhancement [A]. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. et al. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis [A]. In R. Schmidt (Ed.). Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 183-216). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Doughty, C., &.Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., &. Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., &. Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H., & Burt. M. (1974). Natural sequence in child second language acquisition [J]. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction [J]. Language Learning. 51(Supplement 1), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R. et al. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 35/3, 407-432.
Ellis, R. et al. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons [J]. Language Learning. 51/2, 281-318.
Ellis, R. et al. (2002). Doing focus-on-form [J]. System, 30/4, 419-432.
Fotos, S. (1993). Conscious raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction [J]. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and Second Language Learners [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction [A]. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction Course [M]. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Languages Acquisition [C] (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis [J]. Applied Linguistics, 24/2, 168-196.
Koyanagi, K. (1998). The Effect of Focus on Form Tasks on the Acquisition of a Japanese Conditional‘to’: Input, Output and“Task-essentialness”[D]. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. The University of Georgetown.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon
Krashen, S. (1985).The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. Harlow: Longman.
Leeman, J. et al. (1995). Integrating attention to form with meaning: Focus on form in content basedSpanish instruction [A]. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 217-258). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’comprehension and intake in second language acquisition [J]. Applied Language Learning, 8/2, 151-182.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching [J]. Applied Linguistics, 21/4, 431-462.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S. 2003. Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form [J]. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-345.
Long, M. (1981). Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition [J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Long, M. (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input [J]. Applied Linguistics. 4, 126-141.
Long, M. (1983b). Does instruction make a difference? [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development [A]. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives [C] (pp, 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology [A]. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramasch (Eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective [C] (PP, 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition [A]. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic.
Long, M. & Robinson, R. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology [A]. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning [C]. Vol. 1 (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: MultilingualMatters.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms [J]. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 27/3, 405-430.
Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form [J]. ELT Journal, 57, 130-138.
Miller, P. C. (2003). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback: A Meta-analysis [D]. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. University of Purdue.
Muranoi, H. (2001). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classroom [J]. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Nassaji, H. (2000). Towards integration form-focused instruction and communicative integration in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities [J]. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 241-250.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta- analytic review [J]. Language Learning. 51 (Supplement 1): 157-213.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork [J]. Language Learning, 50/1, 119-151.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention [J]. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2/2, 229-258.
Poole, A. B. (2003). Types of Forms ESL Students Focus on in Classroom Group Interaction: A Descriptive Study [D]. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. University of Northern Iowa.
Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory and the noticing hypothesis [J]. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (2001). Cognition and Second Language Instruction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory [A]. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 631-678). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1l/2, 17-46.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention [A]. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C] (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-164.
Seiba, Z. (2001). Classroom Instruction and Second Language Acquisition: The Effect of Explicit Form-Focused Instruction on L2 Learners' Linguistic Competence [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Mississippi.
Shook, J.D. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input to intake phenomenon [J]. Applied Language Learning, 5/2, 57-93.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner [J]. Second Language Research, 7/2, 118-132.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: a review of classroom and laboratory research [J]. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Spada, N. et al. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation [J]. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.
Stern, H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development [A]. In S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning [A]. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics [C] (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlin, R. & Villa, H. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language classroom [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
VanPtten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Ney Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Input processing: An update [J]. Language Learning, 52/4, 755-803.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’attention: a typographical input enhancement study [A]. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.857-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom [J]. Second Language Research, 7/2, 133-161.
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabus [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form [J]. Language Learning, 49/4, 583-625.
Williams, J. (2001).The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form [J]. System, 29/3, 325-340.
Williams, J. & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms [A]. In C. Doughty &. J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C] (pp.139-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2000). The Effect of Textual Enhancement and Simplified Input on L2 comprehension and Acquisition of Non-Meaningful Grammatical Form [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.
Wu, W. (2005). The Role of Form-Focused Communication Activities in Complex Grammar Learning: The Case of Relative Clauses in Chinese [D]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
曹玉米,2006,《英语课堂活动中的口语错误反馈》[MA],浙江大学硕士论文。
高强、李艳,2006,国外语言形式教学新近研究进展述评[J],《外语教学》第5期,53-58。
何莲珍、王敏,2004,交际课堂中的形式教学——国外近期研究综述[J],《外语与外语教学》第1期,23-27。
李灵燕,2007,《“输入强化”对中国大学英语学习者目的语形式注意的作用和影响》[MA],兰州大学硕士论文。
施光,2004,《纠错与接纳:中学英语课堂研究》[MA],南京师范大学硕士论文。
孙燕青,2005,第二语言学习中的反馈[J],《心理科学进展》第13卷第1期,156-161。
唐洁仪,2003,《英语课堂上的教师纠错行为对学生语言习得的影响》[MA],华南师范大学硕士论文。
王芳,2005,《在中学外语课堂上语言形式与任务活动的整合》[MA],东北师范大学硕士论文。
张香存,2005,中国大学英语教师对“focus-on-forms”和“focus-on-form”教学方法的认知[J],《外语教学》第3期,65-68。
张雪梅、戴炜栋,2001,反馈二语习得语言教学[J],《外语界》第2期,3-9。
张一平,2006,“Focus on Form”在第二语言教学中的理论和实践[J],《西安外国语学院学报》第4期,43-47。
张莹,2006,《输入加强与输出对于中国英语学习者定语从句习得的影响》[MA],重庆大学硕士论文。