语言学论文哪里有？本文研究结果表明：1)文本强化对外语学习者的语法习得有轻微的积极影响，文本强化的平均效应量较低 (d = 0.29)；2) 文本强化对外语学习者语法习得的积极影响效应持续存在；3)调节变量分析表明，文本强化的有效性与学习者的外语水平、研究环境和阅读文本的长度有关。
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
As an indispensable part of foreign language learning, grammar is the skeleton of language and a vital link in language teaching. For those who learn a foreign language, grammar runs throughout the whole process. It is not only a key part of the process of language learning, it also poses huge difficulties for learners. It is commonly recognized that foreign language (FL) or second language (L2) learners may encounter issues during the acquisition of a language because of the abstractness of grammatical rules and the huge differences between their mother tongues and foreign languages that they are learning (Ellis & Sagarra, 2010). FL learners tend to ignore grammatical forms, such as the inflection of words and gender agreement during the process of second language learning and this explains why the language level of FL/L2 learners “typically falls far short of nativelike competence” (Ellis & Sagarra, 2010, p.553).
To tackle this issue, researchers have gauged effects of different types of grammar instructions via empirical studies. This, however, is a challenging task because grammar instruction has long been questioned for its effectiveness.
CHAPTER Ⅲ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Questions
Based on the discussion in the previous chapter, it is not difficult to find that studies measuring the effects of TE have obtained conflicting results at home and abroad. The efficacy of TE is variable, and the specific conditions under which TE might be an effective instructional treatment are not transparent. Although the fact that many investigations provide empirical support for the facilitative role of this instructional technique, there is also empirical research showing very limited or even no significant effects for TE.
Building on the preceding discussion, the meta-analysis aims to explore the effectiveness of TE on learners’ grammar acquisition. The research questions are as follows:
(1) What is the overall effect of TE on learners’ grammar learning?
(2) Does the effectiveness of TE persist over time?
(3) How do different variables moderate the effectiveness of TE?
CHAPTER Ⅴ DISCUSSION
5.1 The Overall Effects of TE
The first research question asks what the overall effect of TE is on learners’ grammar learning. It is concerned with the extent to which TE facilitates the development of grammatical knowledge. Therefore, this section will discuss the overall effects of TE form two aspects. Firstly, the thesis compares the effect sizes in three meta-analyses on the effectiveness of TE. Secondly, the findings of previous empirical investigations on TE are presented to provide supports for the present study.
5.1.1 Effect Size of TE on Grammar Acquisition
Based on 24 empirical studies involving 27 effect sizes, the findings of the present study show that TE is slightly effective in improving the learners’ grammar learning of experimental groups (d = 0.391) as compared with that of control groups who have not been exposed to enhanced grammar forms through TE in input. It is discovered that TE demonstrates a small effect, corroborating the results of empirical studies on grammar instruction (e.g., Loewen & Inceoglu, 2016; Winke, 2013).
5.2 The Effects of TE over Time
The second research question: does the effectiveness of TE persist over time? It addresses how the effect of TE on learners’ grammar acquisition changes over time.
5.2.1 Effect Size of TE in Delayed Post-tests
To address the second research question, it is necessary to calculate the effect sizes in the delayed post-tests. The second research question involves the comparison of the effect sizes between the immediate and delayed post-tests. It is concerned with how the effect of TE on learners’ grammar acquisition changes over time. In order to identify whether the efficacy of TE persists over time, separate analysis is performed for the effect sizes related to delayed posttests. According to the analysis results in this study, TE is effective in both immediate and long-term grammar learning. In this meta-analysis, the long-term effect of TE (d = 0.316) is smaller than the short-term effect (d = 0.391).
There might be two causes for this result. Firstly, the effect of TE might dimmish due to an inadequate learning. Lyddon (2011) and Issa & Morgan (2019) argue that grammar knowledge that has not been internalized will be forgotten over time. Therefore, it leads to the smaller effect size over the long term.
CHAPTER Ⅵ CONCLUSION
6.1 Major Findings
In response to the rapidly increasing number of empirical research on TE, this meta-analysis tries to present a summative description of previous findings by calculating the effect sizes. It aims to be an update and complement to the previous meta-analysis that is associated with the effects of TE. In a nutshell, this meta-analysis is intended to determine the overall magnitude of TE in FL/L2 grammar learning and to identify the moderator variables for its efficacy. Major findings from the current meta-analysis are summarized below.
Firstly, it is discovered that TE has slightly positive effects on learners’ grammar learning. In general, the present meta-analysis returns a comparatively smaller effect size of TE (d = 0.391) as compared to that of Norris & Ortega (2000) (d = 0.56) but bigger than that of Lee & Huang (2008) (d = 0.22). The discrepancy among these three meta-analyses regarding the effect size is attributed to their various inclusion criteria adopted.
Secondly, the current finding lends support to the claim that TE is slightly effective though there is a benefit to increasing the visual salience of target forms in reading texts (Lee, 2021; Chung & Révész, 2021; Loewen & Inceoglu, 2016). The results obtained here are also aligned with the theoretical claim that enhanced forms in the input will play a positive role in the noticing and subsequent processing of these forms (e.g., Sharwood Smith, 1991). Nonetheless, the negligible effect of TE is attributable to the fact that TE is likely to increase the chances of noticing forms but does not necessarily lead to deeper processing and succeeding internalization (Lee & Révész, 2018).
reference(omitted)
