입력 처리 활동을 활용한 문법 교수가 한국어 문법 학습에 미치는 영향 연구 = A Study on Effects of IPA-based Teaching on Korean Grammar Learning

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문은 의미 중심 형태 교수법(Focus on Form) 중에서, 입력 처리 활동(Input Processing Activities:IPA)을 활용한 문법 수업이 한국어 학습자의 학습 효과를 알아보고자 한다. 한국어 학습자들은 초급-중급-고급 과정을 거쳐 다양한 형태의 문장들을 접함에 따라 문법에 대해 많은 관심과 궁금증을 갖고 있다. 이에 비해 이러한 학습자들의 관심을 해결해 줄 수 있는 교사들의 교수 방법 안내와 대책이 부족한 것이 현실이다. 그래서 본 연구에서는 의사소통능력을 향상시키기 위해서는 문법적 능력의 성장이 뒷받침되어야 한다는 생각 하에 한국어 초급 학습자들에게 교사로부터 주어지는 입력을 이해하고 처리하는 구조화된 입력 활동(Structured Input Activities)을 수행하게 함으로써 목표 문법에 주목하도록 하는 IPA를 적용하여 그 효과를 검증하고, 효과적인 문법 지도 방안을 알아보는 데에 목적이 있다.
본 연구에서는 IPA를 활용한 한국어 시제 학습 자료 및 활동을 개발하여 D대학교의 한국어 초급학습자 49명을 대상으로 현장 적용을 한 후, IPA를 활용한 문법 교수가 학습자의 시제 규칙 학습에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 알아보고, IPA를 통한 학습의 효과가 1주일ㆍ2주일 후에도 지속적으로 유지되는지를 알아보았다. 실험기간은 총 12주였으며, 실험기간 동안 실험집단(IPA집단)에게는 입력 처리 활동을 활용한 문법 수업을 실시하였고, 통제집단(전통적 교수집단 Traditional Instruction:TI집단)에게는 전통적인 방법의 문법 수업을 실시하였다. 두 집단은 모두 실험 처지에서 문법에 대한 명시적인 설명(Explicit information about the grammatical feature)을 들었다. 처치 후 시제 규칙에 대한 사전ㆍ사후 이해도(Interpretation accuracy)ㆍ산출도(Production accuracy) 측정 평가, 1차ㆍ2차 지연 이해도ㆍ산출도 평가를 바탕으로 제시된 연구 가설과 관련하여 내린 결론은 다음과 같다.
첫째, IPA를 활용한 문법 수업이 한국어 학습자의 시제 규칙 학습의 이해도 측면에 미치는 영향을 살펴보면, IPA집단이 통계적으로 유의미한 향상을 보인 반면, TI집단은 유의미한 차이를 보이지 않았다. 이는 IPA가 시제 학습의 이해도 측면에 효과가 있는 것으로 판단된다.
둘째, 산출도 측면에 미치는 영향을 살펴보면, PI집단과 TI집단 모두 유의미한 향상을 보였다. 이는 IPA의 효과가 학습자의 문장 해석 방식에만 영향을 미칠 뿐만 아니라 문장 산출 방식에도 영향을 미친다고 볼 수 있다.
셋째, 처치 후의 지연된 평가에서 이해도와 산출도 측면에서 지속적인 상승효과에 대해 살펴보면 IPA집단이 이해도와 산출도 지연 평가에서 사전 검사와 비교했을 때 유의미한 효과를 보였다. 또한 사후 검사와 비교했을 때도 평균 점수에 큰 변화가 없음을 보여주는 것은 IPA집단이 처치 후에도 지속적인 효과가 있음 시사해 주는 것이다. 반면 TI집단의 이해도는 사전 검사와 비교했을 때 평균 점수의 변화가 크게 나타나지 않았지만 산출도에서는 사후 검사에서도 유의미한 차이를 보였는데 지연된 검사에도 평균 점수의 변화가 크지 않았다.
본 연구의 결과들을 종합해 볼 때 IPA는 전통적인 방법으로 문법을 수업하는 것 보다 이해도와 산출도 측면의 향상에 큰 도움을 주고, 지속적인 문법 능력 향상을 할 수 있다. 본 연구의 발견은 IPA가 TI보다 우월함을 보여준, PI(Processing Instruction)효과에 관한 대다수 선행 연구의 결과를 뒷받침한다.
본 연구의 강점은 이전의 입력처리에서 다루어지지 않은 언어인 한국어를 대상으로 실험을 하였고, 학습 후 오류가 많이 발생하는 시제 항목을 대상으로 연구하였다는 것이다. 그러나 본 연구가 대상으로 삼은 문법은 시제 한 가지로 한정적이기 때문에 본 연구의 결과들을 확대 적용시켜 일반화하기에는 다소 무리가 있을 수 있다. 앞으로의 연구에서 좀 더 다양한 문법 형태들이 연구되어져야 할 필요가 있다.
또, 이미 목표 문법을 학습한 상태의 학생들을 대상으로 실험 했다는 점과 지연된 검사가 1주일과 2주일이라는 다소 짧은 기간에 이루어진 점은 지속가능한 효과라고 일반화하기에는 다소 무리가 있을 수 있다.
본 연구 결과는 한국어 문법 학습을 보다 다양한 측면에서 연구할 필요가 있다는 것을 보여준다. 연구 결과에서 나타났듯 언어 교육에서 입력 연습이 출력 연습에 선행해야 한다. 마지막으로 입력 처리 활동을 활용한 수업에서 다양하고 창의적인 활동들을 개발하는 것이 필요하다. 즉, 입력 처리 활동의 이론 안에서 학습자들이 적극적으로 수업에 참여할 수 있는 방안을 다양하게 개발하여 수업에 적용하는 것이 필요할 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study delves into the effects of teaching Korean grammar by means of IPA(Input Processing Activities) as part of Focus on Form. As Korean language learners come into contact with diverse sentences through beginning, intermediary and advanced courses, they get to have much interest in and curiosity about Korean grammar. By contrast, guidelines and measures relevant to appropriate teaching methods are not sufficient to deal with learners' interest in Korean grammar. In that sense, assuming improvement in communicative competence requires underpinning of grammatical competence as much, the present study applies IPA to beginner-level Korean language learners, who are to perform SIA (Structured Input Activities) to understand and process inputs teachers provide and to focus on target grammar. Ultimately, the present study is to verify the effects of the aforementioned approach and seek for effective methods for teaching Korean grammar.
The current study developed materials and activities for learning Korean tense using IPA and applied those to 49 beginners learning Korean language in D University so as to find out the effects of IPA-based grammar teaching on learning rules on tense in Korean language. Then, it was determined whether the effects of IPA-based learning could last 1∼2 weeks. For the 12-week period, the experimental group (IPA group) learned grammar using IPA, whereas the control group (Traditional Instruction(TI) group) was applied with traditional teaching of grammar. Both groups were given explicit information about the grammatical features prior to the trial. Relevant to hypotheses set up based on the measurement and tests on pre-/post-interpretation and production accuracy on tense-related rules and the first and second delayed tests on interpretation and production accuracy, the following conclusions were gained.
First, regarding the influence of IPA-based grammar learning on the aspect of interpretation accuracy of Korean language learners in terms of tense rules, the IPA group showed statistically significant improvement, while the TI group did not. This finding indicates IPA is effective for learners' interpretation accuracy on tense.
Second, with respect to the influence on production accuracy, both PI and TI groups showed significant improvement. This indicates that IPA influence learners' sentence interpretation and production accuracy.
Third, in terms of the persistent effects on the interpretation and production accuracy assessed in post delayed tests, the IPA group proved significant effects in the delayed tests on interpretation and production accuracy compared to the pre-test. Also, no significant changes in mean scores, compared to the post-test, indicate that the influence on IPA group was persistent even after the trial. On the other hand, the TI group's interpretation accuracy, compared to the pre-test, did not show any significant changes in mean scores, while its production accuracy showed significant difference even in the post-test. But the delayed test did not find any big difference in mean scores.
To sum up, IPA helps improve interpretation and production accuracy compared to traditional method in learning grammar, leading to persistent improvement of grammatical competence. The findings in this study support many previous study results on PI(Processing Instruction) effects that demonstrated IPA surpasses TI.
The advantage of this study lies in the fact that it deals with Korean language that has never been employed in previous studies on IPA and, more specifically, the tense items prone to post-learning errors. However, this study is limited to tense, which is rather far from generalization. Hence, future studies need inquiring into more diverse grammatical forms.
Further, the facts that study subjects have already studied the target grammar and that the delayed tests were carried out in 1∼2 weeks, which were relatively short, make it hard to generalize that the effects found here are persistent.
The findings in the present study suggest that Korean grammar should be learned from more diversified aspects. As found here, input practice should precede output practice in language learning. Finally, IPA-based teaching/learning requires developing diversified and creative activities. Differently put, within the theories on IPA, a range of methods need developing and applying for learners to actively partake in class.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목 차
• Ⅰ. 서론 ···························································································· 1
• 1.1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 ························································ 1
• 1.2. 연구 내용 및 구성 ································································ 3
• 1.3. 선행연구 ················································································ 4
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 ·············································································· 11
• 2.1. 입력 처리를 활용한 문법 교수 ·········································· 11
• 2.1.1. 입력 처리 ······································································· 11
• 2.1.2. 입력 처리 활동의 특징 ················································· 15
• 2.1.3. 입력 처리 활동의 구조화된 입력 활동 ······················ 16
• 2.2. 시제의 의미와 체계 ···························································· 20
• 2.2.1. 한국어의 시제 체계 ······················································ 22
• 2.2.2. 한국어 시제의 체제와 특징 ········································· 23
• 2.2.3. 한국어에서의 시제 교수 ·············································· 26
• Ⅲ. 연구 방법 및 절차 ··································································· 28
• 3.1. 예비실험 ·············································································· 28
• 3.1.1. 실험 대상자 ···································································· 29
• 3.1.2. 실험 도구 ········································································ 30
• 3.1.3. 실험 절차 및 결과 분석 ················································ 31
• 3.2. 본 실험 ·················································································· 35
• 3.2.1. 연구 가설 ········································································ 35
• 3.2.2. 실험 대상자 및 실험 절차 ············································ 35
• 3.2.3. 실험자료 ········································································ 38
• Ⅳ. 연구 결과 및 논의 ··································································· 46
• 4.1. 입력 처리 활동이 학습자의 시제 학습에 미치는 영향 ·· 47
• 4.1.1 학습자의 이해도 측면에 미치는 영향 ························· 47
• 4.1.2 학습자의 산출도 측면에 미치는 영향 ························· 50
• 4.2. 입력 처리 활동이 지연된 사후 평가에 미치는 영향 ······ 52
• 4.2.1 지연된 사후 평가가 이해도 측면에 미치는 영향 ······· 52
• 4.2.2 지연된 사후 평가가 산출도 측면에 미치는 영향 ······· 55
• Ⅴ. 결론 ···························································································· 59
• 5.1. 결론 ······················································································ 59
• 5.2. 연구의 제한점 및 제언 ························································ 61
• 참고문헌 ························································································· 62
• 부 록 ····························································································· 69
• 영문초록 ·························································································· 95