Summary of the Major Findings

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION

This chapter first summarizes the major findings of present study. Based on the research findings, some pedagogical implications are provided. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research are also included in this chapter.

Summary of the Major Findings

The present study aims to examine causative verb constructions in senior high English textbooks and to provide pedagogical suggestions for textbook writers and language teachers. To achieve this aim, this study first conducted a content analysis of three senior high English textbook series and their accompanying teacher’s manuals with regard to the presentation, practice and explanations of causative verb structures.

The study further conducted a quasi-experiment to investigate whether the textbooks and teacher’s manuals are effective in promoting the learning of causative structures and whether the proposed method is an effective alternative. The major findings derived from this study are summarized as follows.

The content analysis has identified several inadequacies in the textbook series and their accompanying teacher’s manuals. First of all, Textbook A and B show the tendency to simultaneously present various causative structures with no explicit description provided to explain their differences in meaning and use. Second, the three textbook series are deficient in the provision of contextualized examples of the target causative structures for learners to notice their forms, meanings and uses.

Moreover, the textbook series do not incorporate grammar exercises designed for learners to make a choice about which of the target causatives best suits the context.

Furthermore, some inconsistencies are observed between the grammar activities and

text input in Textbook A and B. Finally, the teacher’s manuals fail to provide

sufficient linguistic information on the semantic and pragmatic features of causative

structures. These inadequacies are likely to result in senior high students’ inadequate

knowledge of the meanings and uses of causative structures.

The results obtained from the quasi-experiment provide empirical evidence for the negative consequence of the inadequacies observed in the instructional materials.

The control group was found to perform poorly on the test items for meaning and use before and after given the instructional treatment designed based on the instructional materials under examination(henceforth as the form-based instruction). This shows that the textbook series and teacher’s manuals are not effective in promoting the semantic and pragmatic features of causative structures. On the other hand, the experimental group was found to make significant progress in the posttest items for meaning and use after given the instructional treatment which focuses on the meaning contrasts among causative structures (henceforth as the meaning-based instruction).

Moreover, the experimental group was found to significantly surpass the control group in this regard. These findings suggest that the meaning-based instruction is an effective alternative to enhance the learning of the meaning and use dimensions of causative structures.

The results from the quasi-experiment also demonstrate the effectiveness of the form-based instruction in promoting the learning of the forms of newly-introduced causative structures, i.e. the make + O + p.p., have + O + p.p., get + O + to V and get + O + p.p. structures. This finding suggests that senior high students can benefit from

judicious use of structural pattern drills of the forms they are less familiar with. On the other hand, such drills are not effective in further enhancing students’ learning of the forms they are familiar with, i.e. those of the make + O + V, have + O + V and let + O + V structures. Therefore, more instructional attention should be given to their

meanings and uses.

The questionnaire results further confirm the effectiveness of teaching causative

verb structures with reference to semantic and contextual considerations. Almost all

the experimental group participants provided positive responses when asked about the helpfulness of the meaning-based instruction in facilitating their understanding of the differences among the target causatives in terms of meaning and use. Given the positive findings derived from the study, it is feasible to teach senior high students the functions of causative structures.

Pedagogical Suggestions

Four major pedagogical implications can be drawn from this study.

First and foremost, it is important to present causative structures in context. As stressed in Hughes & McCarthy (1998), grammar should be viewed as a set of

“discourse-affected choices” (p. 280). The choice of one causative structure over the other is also dependent on various contextual clues. Students should be provided with sufficient examples of the target causative structures in contextualized input so that they can notice the contexts where such structures normally occur.

Second, the senior high textbooks should incorporate more exercises designed to raise students’ awareness of the meanings and uses of the target causatives. Take one grammar exercise in Ellis & Gaies (1998) as an example.

(1) Which of these sentences contain an error? Can you correct the errors?

1. He found so many errors in the report that he let his secretary retype it.

2. Our science teacher makes us use the laboratory after school if we want to do extra work.

3. Our office manager doesn’t make us use our office telephones for personal calls.

The exercise in (1) is designed to raise learners’ awareness of the meaning contrasts

between the let- and make-causatives. Similar exercises can be included into the

senior high textbooks. Moreover, the textbooks should provide some communicative

exercises for students to practice using the target causative structures to express

meanings appropriately.

The third implication is concerned with the presentation and sequencing of causative verb structures. As noted by Larsen-Freeman (2001), “different aspects of form, meaning, and use of a given structure may be acquired at different stages of L2 development” (p. 263). It is therefore important to recycle a given causative structure with an additional focus on its different dimensions of form, meaning and use. For example, the make + O + V, let + O + V and have + O + V structures are introduced in junior high schools. Instruction of these structures in senior high schools should therefore put more emphasis on their meanings and uses rather than constant focus on their forms. The results from the quasi-experiment indicate that the experimental group was able to grasp the basic meanings of the three structures without much difficulty after the meaning-based instruction. It is therefore appropriate to teach senior high students the meaning contrasts among the three causative structures.

Finally, the teacher’s manuals should provide not only formal explanations but also functional explications of causative structures to help teachers to fully explain the target causative structures. This study provides a list of recommended reading for local textbook writers to improve the explanations of causative verb structures (see Appendix N).

Limitations of the Study

Although the present study has provided positive evidence for the importance of

teaching causative verb constructions with reference to semantic and pragmatic

considerations, its design is limited in the following aspects. The first limitation

concerns the short time allowed for the instructional treatment given to each group of

participants. Due to a tight school schedule, each instructional treatment only lasted

for a total of 70 minutes. It was difficult for the experimental group to pay attention to

both forms and meanings/uses of the target constructions during such a short period of

time. If a longer period of instruction had been given, the experimental group would have performed better on the posttest items for meaning and use. Moreover, due to time constraints, the posttest was administered to the participants immediately after the instructional treatments. It is therefore uncertain about the long-term effects of the instruction in the meanings and uses of the target causatives.

The second limitation is rooted in the test design. The pre- and post-tests consisted of gap filling items designed to elicit the participants’ receptive knowledge of the target causative verb constructions. No production task was designed to elicit their production knowledge. Thus, the findings of this study are restricted to the participants’ awareness rather than their actual use of the causative verb constructions.

Moreover, guesswork could not be avoided. The participants might have tried to seek the answers to blank-filling items by guessing. This might have some effects on the test scores.

The last limitation lies in the number and selection of the participants. There were only a total of 76 participants involved in the present study. Furthermore, they were restricted to the group of male second-year students from a higher ranking senior high school in Taipei. Due to the limited size and composition of the participants, the results of this study are not generalizable to all the senior-high school students.

Suggestions for Further Research

Based on the limitations stated above, several suggestions are provided for

further research. First, it is highly recommended to prolong the instructional period

for the students to explore the form, meaning and use dimensions of the causative

verb constructions. With the extended instructional period, delayed posttests should be

conducted to investigate the long-term effects of the meaning-based and the

form-based causative verb instruction. However, it should be noted that delayed

posttest performance may be influenced by other language learning events (cf. Liu,

2006, p. 90). If such interfering factors can be controlled, long-term instructional effects are worth investigation.

Second, future research should examine not only learners’ receptive knowledge of the causative verb constructions but also their productive knowledge. Both oral and written production tasks can be utilized to elicit learners’ actual use of the causative structures. Yet free production tasks such as compositions may not always obtain the intended data. Learners may choose not to use the target causative structures in the composition tasks. Therefore, test design requires careful planning to elicit the intended responses from the learners.

The last suggestion is concerned with the selection of participants. The present

study only involved two second-year classes in a municipal senior high school in

Taipei. Further studies are therefore suggested to incorporate participants from diverse

backgrounds (e.g., different gender, proficiency levels and schools). It is hoped that

more studies can be conducted to provide empirical evidence for the necessity and

practicality of teaching causative verb constructions with reference to semantic and

pragmatic considerations.