문법수업 유형이 한국대학생의 학업성취도와 정의적 영역에 미치는 효과

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to make a comparative analysis of teacher-centered input/output groups, student-centered input/ output groups and a mixed group on the academic achievement in English verb tense to determine an efficient grammar teaching method. The study was also meant to investigate any possible changes in learner awareness and affective domain in order to determine the efficiency of the instructional methodology. The participants in this study were 201 EFL college freshmen enrolled in general education courses. They were divided into five groups: a teacher-centered input group (n=38), a teacher-centered output group (n=37), a student-centered input group (n=42), a student-centered output group (n=39) and a mixed group (n=45). The instruments used in this study consisted of achievement tests (pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2) and several questionnaires that covered the basic information of the learners, differences between their pre-and post-awareness of English instruction, and cause of learning motivation and demotivation. The collected data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS/WIN 18.0. All the given texts used in this instruction were accompanied with textual input enhancements and input flood. The teacher-centered input group was given an explicit explanation about the given text and the target form, and then asked to solve multiple-choice comprehension questions after reading the text two or three times individually. After that, the participants of the teacher-centered input group were provided with feedback by the researcher with regards to their accuracy after the completion of the task. The teacher-centered output group was also given an explicit explanation about the given text and the target form, but they engaged in a text reconstruction task instead of reading the text. Again, group feedback was offered by the researcher to the participants after they had individually completed productive questions such as changing verb forms and rephrasing a sentence. The members of the student-centered input group worked in pairs to identify the target form in the given text, and then they were asked to read the text and solve the same comprehension questions as the teacher-centered input group. But they did all activities in pairs and were asked to give peer feedback exchange. The student-centered output group worked in pairs to identify the target form in the given text, and then they engaged in a text reconstruction task instead of reading the text. The participants of the student-centered output group were asked to give peer feedback exchange after solving the same productive questions as the teacher-centered output group. Finally, the members of the mixed group were allowed to work in pairs or individually, and the tasks were combined from the other four groups. The mastery over English verb tenses for all group were analyzed by the SPSS to determine which instructional methodology was likely to improve learning outcomes. The findings of the study were as follows. First, there were no significant intergroup differences in the receptive knowledge test. Both the student-centered output group and the mixed group made significant progress in the productive knowledge test and the mixed group made the most progress in the grammaticality judgement test. The long-term memory effect on the productive knowledge test and the grammaticality judgement test was the greatest for the student-centered output group and the mixed group. Second, the student-centered input/output and mixed groups showed a higher preference for the provided instruction than the teacher-centered input/output groups. The student-centered output and mixed groups were ahead of the teacher-centered input/output groups concerning class participation. The student-centered output and mixed groups expressed more satisfaction than the other groups. The mixed group expressed the most satisfaction with the provided instruction. Third, the intergroup differences to learning motivation (motivational intensity, persistence, attention) were analyzed, and no significant intergroup differences in motivational intensity were identified. However, the mixed group excelled the teacher-centered input/output groups in persistence and it also excelled the teacher-centered output group in attention. As a result of analyzing whether there would be any intergroup differences in demotivation, the teacher-centered input/output groups were more demotivated about the textbook than the other groups. Fourth, the efficiency of the instructional method was analyzed, and the instructional method that was applied to the mixed group was found to be most efficient, followed by the student-centered output group, the student-centered input group, the teacher-centered output group, and the teacher-centered input group. As this study indicates, the participants in the mixed group were able to facilitate language acquisition of the target verb forms the most and showed the highest satisfaction in their instruction. This is probably because the students' affective domain was considered in the mixed group and the participants of that group could choose any tasks according to their character and preferences. The findings also showed that the student-centered lessons provided students with some measure of autonomy with regards to which tasks would most facilitate learning while simultaneously reducing anxiety commonly associated with teacher-centered output production. Results also indicate that pair activities allow students to face less anxiety regarding language tasks thereby increasing class participation and academic achievement. Therefore pair activities should be more widespread in school education.