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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………1

1.1 ResearchBackground…………………………………… 1
1.2 Purpose of theStudy……………………………………4
1.3 Research Questions……………………… ……………5
1.4 Significance of the Study……………………………6
1.5 Definition of Terms……………………………………7 
1.6 Organization of the Study……………………………8

2.  LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………10
2.1 The Importance of Input in Second Language Learning..10
2.2 Input Processing………………………………………12
2.2.1 The Rationale of Input Processing…………… 13
2.2.1.1 The Primacy of Meaning…………………………14
2.2.1.2 The First Noun Strategy……………………… 18
2.2.2 Developing System and Output……………………20
2.3 The Traditional Instruction…………………21
2.3.1 Grammar Translation Method (GTM)………………22
2.3.2 Audio Lingual Method (ALM)………………………23
2.3.3 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)……… 25
2.4 Processing Instruction………………………28
2.4.1 Guidelines for Processing Instruction………29
2.5 Findings of Processing Instruction……………31
2.5.1 Positive Findings of Processing Instruction…31
2.5.2 Other Findings of Processing Instruction……38
2.6 Summary of Chapter 2....................40

3. METHDOLOGY……………………………………………42
3.1 Subjects………………………………………………42
3.2 Instruments…………………………………………43
3.3 Treatment and Procedures…………………………45
3.4 Scoring Procedure and Data Analysis…………52

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS…………………………………54
4.1 Results……………………………………………………54
4.1.1 Results of the Comprehension Task………………55
4.1.2 Results of the production tasks…………………60
4.2 Discussions of the findings………………………75
4.2.1 The Immediate Effect of Processing Instruction…75
4.2.2 The Long-term Effect of Processing Instruction…79
4.2.3 Possible Explanations for the Effect of Traditional  
      Instruction...81
4.3 Summary of Chapter 4……………………………82

5. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………84
5.1 Summary of the Study……………………………84
5.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………86
5.3 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further 
    Research…88

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………90
APPENDIX A: Background Survey Questionnaire…………96
APPENDIX B: Pretest…………………………………………97
APPENDIX C: Posttest……………………………………100
APPENDIX D: Delayed Posttest…………………………103
APPENDIX E: School Syllabus…………………………106
APPENDIX F: TI Lesson Plans…………………………108
APPENDIX G: PI Lesson Plans…………………………112
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Paulston’s Taxonomy of Practice Types and Their Sequential Ordering…….27
Table 3.1 Three Types of Indirect Wh-questions……………………………………….48
Table 4.1 One-way ANOVA of Pretest…………………………………………………54
Table 4.2 Mean Raw Scores and Standard Deviations for the Comprehension Task…55
Table 4.3 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest…………….56
Table 4.4 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest …………………….………………57
Table 4.5 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest …………………….…………………57
Table 4.6 Mean Gain Scores and Standard Deviations for the Comprehension Task…..58
Table 4.7 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest……………...58
Table 4.8 Post-hoc Scheffe of Gain Scores of Immediate Posttest………………………59
Table 4.9 Post-hoc Scheffe of Gain Scores of Delayed Posttest……...………………….59
Table 4.10 Mean Raw Scores and Standard Deviations for the Sentence Completion Task…61
Table 4.11 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest………………62
Table 4.12 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest………………….62
Table 4.13 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest…………………........................................63
Table 4.14 Mean Gain Scores and Standard Deviations for the Sentence Completion Task…63
Table 4.15 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest………………….64
Table 4.16 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest………………..........................................64
Table 4.17 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest………………………………………..……65
Table 4.18 Mean Raw Scores and Standard Deviations for the Sentence Creation Task…….65
Table 4.19 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest………………….66
Table 4.20 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest…..............................................................67
Table 4.21 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest………………………….………………….67
Table 4.22 Mean Gain Scores and Standard Deviations for the Sentence Creation Task……68
Table 4.23 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest………………….68
Table 4.24 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest…………………………………………..69
Table 4.25 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest…………………..........................................69
Table 4.26 Mean Raw Scores and Standard Deviations for the Production Task……………70
Table 4.27 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest…………………71
Table 4.28 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest………………………………………….71
Table 4.29 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest…………………..........................................72
Table 4.30 Mean Gain Scores and Standard Deviations for the Production Task…………….72
Table 4.31 One-way ANOVA of Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest………………….73
Table 4.32 Post-hoc Scheffe of Immediate Posttest………………………………………….73
Table 4.33 Post-hoc Scheffe of Delayed Posttest…………………..........................................74
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Second Language Acquisition Model………………………………..13
Figure 4.1 Results of the Comprehension Task Using Mean Raw Scores………56
Figure 4.2 Results of the Sentence Completion Task Using Mean Raw Scores…61
Figure 4.3 Results of the Sentence Creating Task: Using Mean Raw Scores…….66
Figure 4.4 Results of the Production Task: Using Mean Raw Scores…………….70

References
Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69-84.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 37, 385-407.
Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italin future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5, 95-127. 
Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive approach to Language Pedagogy. (2nd ed.). White plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 179-193.
Cheng, A. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85,308-323.
Chiu, L. C., & Chang, M.Y. (2006).  Using Predictable Books to Teach Writing an EFL setting.  Selected Papers from the fifteenth Conference on Teaching English as a Foreign Language, pp10-16.  Taipei: Crane Publishing.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language learning, 46, 613-642. 
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1974). Is second language learning really like the first? TESOL Quarterly, 8, 111-127.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G.. (1986). The role of comprehension in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 7, 257-274.
Farley, A. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.
Gass, S. M. (1989). How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts? In. S. Gass & J. Schacter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 183-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviors of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12, 268-297.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1987) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Laesen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. 
Lee, J. F. (1987a). The Spanish subjunctive: An information processing perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 71, 50-57.
LoCoco, V. (1987). Learner comprehension of oral and written sentences in German and Spanish: The importance of word order. In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dvorak & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign Language Learning: A research perspective (pp. 119-129). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279-295.
Omaggio, H. (1993).  Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Peters, A. M. (1985). Language segmentation: Operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, vol 2. (pp. 1029-1067). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum Associates.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239-274.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1989). Canadian immersion and adult second language teaching: What’s the connection? Modern Language Journal, 75, 150-159.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P.W. Lee, J. Mileham, and R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 169-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 
VanPattern, B. ed. (2004). Processing: Theory, Research, and Commentary.  A volume in the second language acquisition research series.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0805846352 
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: a teacher's guide to second language acquisition. Boston : McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B. & Lee, J. F. (1995) Making communicative language teaching happen. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
Vanpatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). The causative variables in processing instruction: Explanation vs. structured input activities. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
VanPatten, B. & Houston, T. (1998). Contextual effects in processing L2 input sentences. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 53-70.
VanPatten, B. (2000a). Thirty years of input (or intake, the neglected sibling). In B. Swierzbin, F. Mprris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 287-311). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
VanPatten, B. (2000b). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: issues in theory and research. In J. F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-68). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803. 
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 
Wong, W. (2002). Linking form and meaning: Processing Instruction. The French Review, 76, 236-264.
Wu, C. M. (2002). A Study of the Comparative Effect of Input-based Grammar Instruction and Output-based Instruction on the Acquisition of the English Subjunctive Mood. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Xu, J. A. (2001). Using Processing Instruction to Teach Wh-questions in Secondary EFL Classes in Taiwan. Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.