디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제19권9호
  • /
  • Pages.307-316
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

형태 초점 교수법이 제2 언어학습자의 문법 성취도에 미치는 영향: 연역적 방법과 귀납적 방법을 중심으로

The Effects of Focus-on-Form Instruction on L2 Learners' Grammatical Achievement: Focusing on the Deductive and Inductive FFI

  • 투고 : 2021.07.30
  • 심사 : 2021.09.20
  • 발행 : 2021.09.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 연역적 형태 초점 교수법과 귀납적 형태 초점 교수법이 제2 언어학습자의 문법 성취도에 미치는 영향을 분석하고, 문법 학습에 대한 반응의 변화를 파악하는 것이다. 연구 참여자들은 84명의 대학생으로 연역적 방법을 적용한 집단 29명, 귀납적 방법의 집단 28명과 전통적 방법의 집단 27명이었다. 이들을 대상으로 사전평가 및 사전설문조사 실시하였고, 수업 처치 후 사후평가와 사후설문조사를 진행하였으며 9주 후에 지연 사후평가를 수행하였다. 모든 양적 자료의 통계 처리를 위해 일원배치 분산분석, 대응표본 T-검정, 반복측정 분산분석을 실시하였다. 연구 결과, 두 가지 형태 초점 교수법은 학습자의 문법 성취도 향상에 영향을 미쳤으며 이들의 장기적 지속 효과도 있었던 것으로 나타났다. 한편, 연역적 방법이 성취도에 더 효과적이었던 반면 문법 학습에 대한 반응에 있어서는 귀납적 방법이 더 긍정적인 변화를 보였다. 본 연구 결과는 형태 초점 교수법이 한국의 EFL 상황에서도 충분히 활용할 가치가 있음을 함의한다. 따라서 형태 초점 교수법의 지속 효과에 대해 더 장기적인 변화과정을 관찰하는 후속 연구가 이루어져야 할 것이다.

This study aims to explore the effects of deductive FFI and inductive FFI in L2 learners' grammatical achievement and their reaction to the grammar instruction. 84 students were placed into three groups: 29 given deductive FFI(DG), 28 receiving inductive FFI(IG), and 27 with traditional instruction(CG). All students completed pre/post tests and questionnaires, and took a delayed post test 9 weeks after the treatment. For statistical anlayses of all the quantitative data, a one-way ANOVA, paired samples T-test, and repeated measures ANOVA were performed. The results indicated that both deductive and inductive FFI affected learners' grammatical achievement and their achievement was sustained over time. Deductive FFI was more effective than inductive FFI, whereas the IG students more positively changed their attitudes and perceptions to the grammar instruction. These findings of the study imply that FFI should be valued in an Korean EFL classroom, which would contribute to further longitudinal research for its sustainability.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by the Jungwon University Research Grant(과제관리번호: 2019-044).

참고문헌

  1. S. Krashen. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  2. T. D. Terrell. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb01083.x
  3. M. Pienemann. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100005015
  4. M. Long. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 2(1), 39-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  5. V. Cook. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching, 41-43. London: Arnold & Oxford University Press.
  6. R. Ellis. (2001). Investigating form-focus instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147
  7. R. Ellis & X. He. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002077
  8. Y. Han. (2007). Exploring task effects: Focus on form in dictogloss and grammar-discovery tasks. The New Korean Journal of English Language and Literature, 49(2), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.25151/NKJE.2007.49.2.011
  9. J. Hwang. (2004). How to apply focus-on-form techniques to Korean EFL classroom. Foreign Language Education, 11, 85-101.
  10. S. Izumi. (2002). Out, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
  11. F. Kuiken & I. Vedder. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00009-0
  12. M. Mayo. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.t01-1-00029
  13. N. Nagata. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational sftwre for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.
  14. J. M. Norris & L. Ortega. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
  15. K. H. Yeo. (2002). The effects of dictogloss: A technique of focus on form. English Teaching, 57(1), 149-168.
  16. M. Canale & M. Swain. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/1.1.1
  17. L. F. Bachman. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Y. Cho. (2017). Effects of isolated or integrated form-focused instruction on vocabulary learning. Foreign Languges Education, 24(3), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.15334/FLE.2017.24.3.77
  19. R. Erlam. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronounce in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 232-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00188
  20. P. Robinson. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014674
  21. V. Scott. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05303.x
  22. C. Doughty & J. Williams. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  23. S. Fotos. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587436
  24. Y. Lee & H. Kim. (2007). A comparative study on deductive versus inductive grammar instruction in high school English class. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 37-64.
  25. G. Jean & D. Simard. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles. System, 41, 1023-1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.008
  26. S. Thornbury. (1999). How to teach grammar. London: Longman.