Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1Background of this study

With the development of second language and foreign language instruction,more and more theoretical and empirical research found that grammar instruction isessential in second language acquisition (SLA). Firstly, the noticing hypothesis bySchmidt (1990, 1993) implied that noticing, that is, to pay conscious attention to theforms of language, facilitates language learning (Bialystok 1990; Doughty 1991;Skehan 1998; Ellis 2001). Secondly, the teachability hypothesis by Pienemann (1984)indicated that grammar instruction can help L2 learners to speed up the rate of L2learning and grammar instruction plays an important part in the developmentalsequence of interlanguage (Lightbown 2000). Thirdly, a large quantity ofexperimental research suggested that grammar instruction has a positive impact onenhancing the scores of second language use, learning speed and the ultimate secondlanguage proficiency (Ellis 1998, 2001; Long 1983; Lightbown and Spadal990;Doughty 1991; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; Carroli and Swain 1993).

…………..

1.2The significance of this study

The studies on the effects of the PACE model on students' learning and retentionof grammatical structures have increased recently (Adair-Hauck and Donato 2002a;Adair-Hauck and Donato 2002b; Haight et al. 2007; Haight 2008; Vogel et al. 2011;Groeneveld 2011; Toth et al. 2012; Tian 2012; Shan 2010; Long 2012). Most of theresearch adopted a design, which focused on comparing its effects on grammaticalstructures (Haight et al. 2007; Haight 2008; Vogel et al. 2011; Tian 2012; Long 2012).Some research studied the effects of the PACE model on learning easy grammaticalstructures (Haight et al. 2007; Haight 2008; Vogel et al. 2011; Groeneveld 2011; Tothet al. 2012; Shan 2010; Long 2012); some also adopted a qualitative method to testthe participants' attitudes towards the PACE model (Vogel et al. 2011; Shan 2010;Long 2012). However，less research has been done on the differences in the effects ofthe PACE model on grammar learning of participants at different proficiency levels.None of them explored the reasons for the participants' attitudes towards the PACEmodel or just briefly mentioned them. Less attention has been paid to its effects onlearning difficult grammatical structures. Therefore, research on the differences in theeffects of the PACE model on grammar learning of participants at differentproficiency levels, and their attitudes towards the PACE model and the reasons for itis necessary for the development of a theoretical understanding of the nature of thePACE model and the challenges it involves as the basis for relevant pedagogy.

……..

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1The necessity of grammar instruction

Although Krashen (1982) evidently specified that SLA is a subconscious processwhich resembles the process children experience as they acquire their first language,more and more empirical and theoretical studies have indicated the necessity ofgrammar instruction, and the most impressive is that it can improve the scores oflanguage use (Nassaji and Fotos 2004).Firstly, the noticing hypothesis by Schmidt in the 1990s offers theoretical basis tothe significance of grammar instruction. Schmidt (1990, 1993) clearly indicatedconsciously focusing on the forms of language, that is，noticing, plays an essentialrole in language learning. While some academics objected to the viewpoint (Truscott1998)，more SLA researchers were in favor of it (Bialystok 1990; Doughty 1991;Skehan 1998; Ellis 2001). Meanwhile, experts (Skehan 1998) found out that languagelearners are incapable of processing both meaning and form of the input at the sametime (Nassaji and Fotos 2004). Thus, in order not to sacrifice form for the sake ofmeaning, the grammatical properties of the input deserve attention from foreignlanguage learners as well.Secondly, the teachability hypothesis by Pienemann (1984) also offers theoreticalbasis the importance of grammar instruction. On the basis of research done onGerman English learners, Pienemann (1984) put forward the teachability hypothesis. It was suggested that while learners acquire language in a particular order, unlikely tobe altered by grammar teaching, grammar teaching does facilitate learners to learn asecond language more rapidly. Based on the assumption, when language learners arewilling to improve their present proficiency to receive through grammar instruction, itis highly likely that it will facilitate their developmental sequence of interlanguage(Lightbown 2000). Therefore, more and more researchers suggested that grammarinstruction be incorporated in foreign language teaching, especially in communicativeforeign language classrooms.

………

2.2Gramniar instruction approaches

While large numbers of research revealed that grammar instruction promoteslanguage learning, what the best way to teach grammar is in foreign languageclassrooms have always been controversial (Fotos and Ellis 1991; VanPatten andCadierno 1993; DeKeyser and Sokalski 1996; Salaberry 1997). Looking back towardsthe development of grammar teaching, grammar instruction approaches have beenvarying from purely deductive or explicit grammar instruction, where instructorspresent and explain rules followed by examples, to purely inductive or implicitgrammar instruction, where learners themselves analyze examples to formulate rules. The explicit or deductive grammar instruction can also be referred to asform-oriented grammar instruction or ‘focus on forms'. Protagonists of explicitgrammar instruction take language as a static system, consisting of a set of linguisticconstituents displayed in a special order based on a finite series of rules. In explicitgrammar instruction, the teacher first expounds on grammatical rules directly and thenintroduces related examples portraying these rules to students.

……….

Chapter 3 Methodology.........22

3.1 Research questions........ 22

3.2 Participants ........22

3.3 Materials........  23

3.4 Target structure........   23

3.5 Instruments ........24

3.6 Research procedure........   26

3.7 Data collection and analysis........30

3.8 Summary ........33

Chapter 4 Results and Discussions........     35

4.1 The difficulty order of relative clauses in acquisition ........35

4.2 The types of errors ........39

4.3 The scores of the use of relative clauses........  42

4.4 The participants' attitudes towards the PACE model........ 44

4.5 Summary........ 51

Chapter 5 Conclusion ........53

5.1 Major findings........ 53

5.2 Implications for middle school grammar instruction........ 54

5.3 Limitations of this study and suggestions........55

Chapter 4 Results and Discussions

4.1 The difficulty order of relative clauses in acquisition

This chapter reports and discusses the findings for the four research questions.The findings derived mainly from the analyses of the sentence combining test,grammaticality judgment test, contextualized writing test, and questionnaire. Findingsand discussions focus on the differences in the effects of the PACE model on thedifficulty order of three types of relative clauses in acquisition, types of errors and thescores of the use of relative clauses among high-level，intennediate-level, andlow-level participants. Finally，findings and discussions focus on the attitudes of allthe participants towards the PACE model. This section reports and discusses the findings for research question 1: Are thereany differences in effects of the PACE model on the difficulty order of three types ofrelative clauses in acquisition among high-level, intermediate-level, and low-levelstudents?To answer research question 1, I examined the reports on the difficulty order ofthree types of relative clauses in acquisition for the three levels of students in thesentence combining test and grammaticality judgment test.

……..

Conclusion

This study explored the differences in the effects of the PACE model on thelearning of relative clauses of participants at different proficiency levels, and tiieirattitudes towards the PACE model and the reasons for it. Specifically, it aimed atidentifying differences in the effects of the PACE model on the difficulty order ofthree types of relative clauses in acquisition, types of errors and the scores of the useof relative clauses in a context among high-level, intermediate-level, and low-levelparticipants. The major findings emerged from the analyses of the data collectedfrom a sentence combining test, a grammaticality judgment test, a contextualizedwriting test，and a questionnaire.Firstly, it was revealed that the PACE model helped high-level participants makesome improvement in the acquisition of DO, intermediate-level participants in theacquisition of DO and low-level participants in the acquisition of OPREP. Secondly,it was discovered that after being taught with the PACE model，high-level participantstended to make errors of NON，intermediate-level and low-level participants makeerrors of PR or NR. Thirdly，it was also found that high-level and low-levelparticipants similarly produced many relative clauses that contain any of the four errortypes, namely, PR，NON, IM and 10 in a context while intermediate-level participantsproduced many relative clauses containing a breakdown such as omission of headnoun or verb in the relative clause in a context. Fourthly，it was also discovered thatmost of the participants were in favor of the PACE model but a small number of themwere not because of learner differences in intelligence, learning styles and learningpreferences.

…………

Reference (omitted)