大学英语教师话语与课堂互动效果的研究
|
摘要
目前国内外学者对教师话语的研究大多注重其作为语言输入所具有的特征,但关于教师话语在课堂互动中所起的作用在外语教学领域尚未引起足够的重视。在新大纲的要求下,教师话语也必然要进行改革。由于上述原因,本研究将对沈阳师范大学六位ESP大学英语教师课堂话语进行全面系统的分析。通过对他们的课堂话语及课堂互动效果的调查与分析,帮助更多教师了解怎样的教师话语更有利于课堂互动。
本研究采用自然调查法,旨在描述和了解真实的教学过程。作者试图研究大学英语教师话语对课堂互动效果的影响,选取沈阳师范大学(以下简称沈师)大学英语特色类教学(新托福、雅思方向)的英语课堂作为个案进行研究。作者对个案中的英语课堂进行了全程录音和详细的观察记录,为了从不同角度研究教师话语对课堂互动效果的影响,作者还对学生发放了问卷(见附录一)。
围绕这些研究问题,作者对个案中的课堂进行了多次观察；之后从这些课堂中的学生里随机抽取了200名学生进行了关于“大学英语教师话语对课堂互动效果的影响”的问卷调查；最后为了就某几个具体问题获取更多的信息,作者对所观察课堂的6名教师进行了半结构化访谈(访谈提纲见附录二)。本研究将观察法、问卷法和访谈法有机地结合起来。
研究发现,1)个案中的教师话语时间占总课堂时间的62.22%,能够为学生提供充足的英语输入,另外还为学生提供一定的课堂时间来练习英语口语,从而提高课堂互动效果。2)个案中的教师的参考性问题多于展示性问题,参考性问题比展示性问题更有利于课堂互动。3)个案中的教师在学生回答问题正确时,通常对学生进行表扬并进行点评,十分利于课堂互动。在学生回答错误时,教师通常为学生提供部分答案作为提示,期待学生补充出其余答案；而重复学生的错误,鼓励学生进行自我修正十分利于课堂互动。4)个案中的教师通常运用澄清请求这种互动调整方式,十分利于课堂互动。
最后,作者系统地对本研究进行了总结,并指出了由于时间等客观因素的限制,本研究存在的一些不足之处。作者还为今后该方面的研究提出了一些可行的建议。
Currently, most of researchers home and abroad on teacher talk only focus on the features of it as language input, but there has been little attention paid to the role of teacher talk in classroom interaction in the field of foreign language teaching. In order to meet the requirement of the newly-revised College English Syllabus, teacher talk has to be reformed. Due to the above reasons, this study will analyze teacher talk of six ESP teachers comprehensively and systematically. Through the investigation and analysis of their classroom teacher talk and effect of classroom interaction, this study is aimed to help more teachers learn what kind of teacher talk is conducive to classroom interaction.
This study takes naturalistic inquiry as research method, with the aim of investigating the real teaching process. The researcher wants to explore the influence of college English teacher talk on the effect of classroom interaction, choosing the classes of ESP (TOEFL-iBT & IELTS) Teaching in Shenyang Normal University ("TOEFL-iBT & IELTS Teaching in SYNU" is used in the following part for short) as the case to carry out this study. The researcher audio-recorded the observed classes of TOEFL-iBT & IELTS Teaching in SYNU, and took field notes during the process of classroom observation. Meanwhile, questionnaires (see AppendixⅠ) have been handed out to students with the aim of studying the influence of college English teacher talk on the effect of classroom interaction from different perspectives.
Based on these research questions, first of all, the author observed classes of TOEFL-iBT & IELTS in SYNU several times; Then the author chose 200 students randomly from these classes to participate in the questionnaire survey; Finally, the author conducted semi-structured interview with six teachers of the observed classes to acquire more information about some specific issues. This study incorporates three types of research methods- observation, questionnaire, and interview.
The study has found that:1) The percentage of teacher talk time in the total class time in the classes of the six chosen teachers of TOEFL-iBT & IELTS Teaching in SYNU is 62.22%, which provides the students with enough English input; furthermore, these teachers allocate some time to let students give their own output, which can improve classroom interaction.2) The teachers of TOEFL-iBT and IELTS Teaching in SYNU raise more referential questions than display questions, and referential questions are more conducive to classroom interaction.3) The teachers of TOEFL-iBT and IELTS Teaching in SYNU can give suitable feedback to students'answers: When students give right answers, most of the teachers give praise and then comments to students'good performance, and this is the best way of teacher praise profitable to classroom interaction; When students give wrong answers, most of the teachers provide students with part of the correct answer as assistance to elicit students to give the rest answer, and the best way of error treatment that does good to classroom interaction is to repeat students'errors to arouse students'attention, in order to encourage students to make self-repair till they give the right answers themselves.4) The teachers of TOEFL-iBT and IELTS Teaching in SYNU use clarification requests most often to solve communication problems in class, and clarification requests are the best way of interactional modification to elicit students'output, thus conducive to classroom interaction.
At the end of this thesis, the author summarizes the whole study systematically, pointing out the limitations of the present study due to the limited objective situations, such as limited time. Moreover, the author offers some feasible suggestions for future research of the same kind.
本研究采用自然调查法,旨在描述和了解真实的教学过程。作者试图研究大学英语教师话语对课堂互动效果的影响,选取沈阳师范大学(以下简称沈师)大学英语特色类教学(新托福、雅思方向)的英语课堂作为个案进行研究。作者对个案中的英语课堂进行了全程录音和详细的观察记录,为了从不同角度研究教师话语对课堂互动效果的影响,作者还对学生发放了问卷(见附录一)。
围绕这些研究问题,作者对个案中的课堂进行了多次观察；之后从这些课堂中的学生里随机抽取了200名学生进行了关于“大学英语教师话语对课堂互动效果的影响”的问卷调查；最后为了就某几个具体问题获取更多的信息,作者对所观察课堂的6名教师进行了半结构化访谈(访谈提纲见附录二)。本研究将观察法、问卷法和访谈法有机地结合起来。
研究发现,1)个案中的教师话语时间占总课堂时间的62.22%,能够为学生提供充足的英语输入,另外还为学生提供一定的课堂时间来练习英语口语,从而提高课堂互动效果。2)个案中的教师的参考性问题多于展示性问题,参考性问题比展示性问题更有利于课堂互动。3)个案中的教师在学生回答问题正确时,通常对学生进行表扬并进行点评,十分利于课堂互动。在学生回答错误时,教师通常为学生提供部分答案作为提示,期待学生补充出其余答案；而重复学生的错误,鼓励学生进行自我修正十分利于课堂互动。4)个案中的教师通常运用澄清请求这种互动调整方式,十分利于课堂互动。
最后,作者系统地对本研究进行了总结,并指出了由于时间等客观因素的限制,本研究存在的一些不足之处。作者还为今后该方面的研究提出了一些可行的建议。
Currently, most of researchers home and abroad on teacher talk only focus on the features of it as language input, but there has been little attention paid to the role of teacher talk in classroom interaction in the field of foreign language teaching. In order to meet the requirement of the newly-revised College English Syllabus, teacher talk has to be reformed. Due to the above reasons, this study will analyze teacher talk of six ESP teachers comprehensively and systematically. Through the investigation and analysis of their classroom teacher talk and effect of classroom interaction, this study is aimed to help more teachers learn what kind of teacher talk is conducive to classroom interaction.
This study takes naturalistic inquiry as research method, with the aim of investigating the real teaching process. The researcher wants to explore the influence of college English teacher talk on the effect of classroom interaction, choosing the classes of ESP (TOEFL-iBT & IELTS) Teaching in Shenyang Normal University ("TOEFL-iBT & IELTS Teaching in SYNU" is used in the following part for short) as the case to carry out this study. The researcher audio-recorded the observed classes of TOEFL-iBT & IELTS Teaching in SYNU, and took field notes during the process of classroom observation. Meanwhile, questionnaires (see AppendixⅠ) have been handed out to students with the aim of studying the influence of college English teacher talk on the effect of classroom interaction from different perspectives.
Based on these research questions, first of all, the author observed classes of TOEFL-iBT & IELTS in SYNU several times; Then the author chose 200 students randomly from these classes to participate in the questionnaire survey; Finally, the author conducted semi-structured interview with six teachers of the observed classes to acquire more information about some specific issues. This study incorporates three types of research methods- observation, questionnaire, and interview.
The study has found that:1) The percentage of teacher talk time in the total class time in the classes of the six chosen teachers of TOEFL-iBT & IELTS Teaching in SYNU is 62.22%, which provides the students with enough English input; furthermore, these teachers allocate some time to let students give their own output, which can improve classroom interaction.2) The teachers of TOEFL-iBT and IELTS Teaching in SYNU raise more referential questions than display questions, and referential questions are more conducive to classroom interaction.3) The teachers of TOEFL-iBT and IELTS Teaching in SYNU can give suitable feedback to students'answers: When students give right answers, most of the teachers give praise and then comments to students'good performance, and this is the best way of teacher praise profitable to classroom interaction; When students give wrong answers, most of the teachers provide students with part of the correct answer as assistance to elicit students to give the rest answer, and the best way of error treatment that does good to classroom interaction is to repeat students'errors to arouse students'attention, in order to encourage students to make self-repair till they give the right answers themselves.4) The teachers of TOEFL-iBT and IELTS Teaching in SYNU use clarification requests most often to solve communication problems in class, and clarification requests are the best way of interactional modification to elicit students'output, thus conducive to classroom interaction.
At the end of this thesis, the author summarizes the whole study systematically, pointing out the limitations of the present study due to the limited objective situations, such as limited time. Moreover, the author offers some feasible suggestions for future research of the same kind.
引文
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom:An introduction to classroom. Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning, Applied Linguistics 5:156-171.
Bentley, D. & Watts, M. (1992). Communicating in school science:Groups, tasks, and problem solving. London:The Farmer Press.
Brock, M., Yu, B., & Wong, M. (1992). "Journaling" together:Collaborative diary-keeping and teacher development. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Development (pp. 295-307). Hong Kong:City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise:A functional analysis, Review of Educational Research 51.
Brown, D. & Douglas, H. (1994). Teaching by principles:an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Butler, D., Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback as self-regulated learning:A theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational Review 65,245-281.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback:an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations, Studies in Second Language Acquisition (15),105.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms:Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. (2000). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Crookes, G. & Long, M. (1987). Task-based second language teaching:A brief report, Modern English Teacher 24 (5),26-8.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypotheses, Language Learning 46,529-555.
DiCamilla, F.J. & Antn, M. (2004). Private speech:A study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners, Inter actional Journal of Applied Linguistics (14),36-69.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies, TESOL Quarterly (29),55-85.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis:a critical evaluation. Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom, RELC (28),179-210.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning, Applied Linguistics 19(1),1-23.
Francis, C.I., John, B. & Florence, Y. O. (2009). The nature of interaction in English language classrooms, The International Journal of Learning 16(7),217-227.
Gaies, S.J. (1985). Peer Involvement in Language Learning. Language in Education: Theory and Practice No.60. CAL/ERIC. Orlando, Fla.:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Gass, S. & T. Pica. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition, The Modern Language Journals 82(3),299-307.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R. & Lam, J. (1997). Developing discussion skills in the ESL classroom, ELT Journal 1(2),135-143.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD:Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision, The Modern Language Journal (84),51-68.
Hakansson, G. (1986). Quantitative studies of teacher talk. Kasper (ed.). Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Harmer, J. (2000). How to Teach English. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning:present fields of application. Strasbourg:Council of Europe.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use:Exploring error analysis. London:Longman.
Johnson, K. E. (2000). Understanding communication in second language classroom. Beijing:People's Education Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis:Issues and implication. London:Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research Norwood. New York:Ablex Pub. Corp.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 379-394). New York:Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. (1983). Native Speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of meaning, Applied Linguistics (4),126-141.
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies:An interactionist perspective. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp.253-279). Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Long, M. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. Gass, Susan M. & Madden, Carolyna. Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:New House Publishers.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Ritchie, W.C. & T.K. Bhatia (eds.). Hand Book of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Lyster, R & Ranta, L. (1997).Corrective feedback and learner uptake:negotiation of form in communicative classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition (19),37-66.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In Dekeyser, Robert. (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language:Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Marion, W. & Robert, L. B. (2006). Psychology for language teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Nikula, T. (2002). Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness:A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings, Pragmatics 12 (4),447-467.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology:A textbook for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.
Penny, Ur. (2000). A course in language teaching:Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. & Long, M. H. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. R.R Day (ed.). Talking to Learner: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass:Newbury House.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the Definition of Feedback, Behavioural Science 28 (1), 4-13.
Richard, C. (2002). Supportive teacher talk:the importance of the F-move, ELT Journal 56(2),117-127.
Richards, J. C. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Schmidt, R., Kendrick, H., & Kim, Y. (2005). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science 18 (2),119-144.
Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
Spolsky, B. (2000). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence:Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis:Just reading and writing aren't enough, Canadian Modern Language Review (50),158-164.
Swain, M & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning:The uses of the first language, Language Teaching Research (4),251-274.
Thomas, T., Karen, E. J. & Tracy, S.D. (2010). A Sociocultural analysis of teacher talk in inquiry-based professional development, Language Teaching Research 14(2),129-140.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching, ELT Journal 50(1),9-15.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996b) Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: a typology, British Educational Research Journal 22,389-404.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction:teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom, Language Teaching Research 6(1),3-23.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input:The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence, Applied Linguistics (8),95-110.
Wilga, M. R. (2000). Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge:Oxford University Press.
Woods, A., Fletcher, P. & Hughes, A. (1986). Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xu Xiaohui. (2010). Analysis of teacher talk on the basis of relevance theory, Canadian Social Science 6(3),45-50.
陈勤(2004),教师话语、课堂角色与语言学习,《四川师范大学学报》31 (4)：82-86。
范栩(2004),大学英语教师话语分析,《华南农业大学学报》3(2)：151-156。
何安平(2003),基于语料库的英语教师话语分析, 《现代外语季刊》(4)：161-170。
胡青球(2007),优秀英语教师课堂话语特征分析,《山东外语教学》(1)：54-58。
胡学文(2003),教师话语的特征及功能, 《山东外语教学》(3)：39-43。
黄小苹(2006),课堂话语微观分析：理论、方法与实践,《外语研究》(5)：53-57。
姜浩,周华(2006),激发英语课堂互动的有效途径——分组活动，《中美英语教学》(4)：43-45。
李俊芬(2008),大学英语教学中有效教师反馈策略模式初探，《外语教学理论与实践》(2)：51-52。
李姗姗(2008)，大学英语课堂上教师话语的研究,硕士学位论文。长春；东北师范大学。
李素枝(2008)，中外教师课堂话语策略对比研究,《西安外国语大学学报》(1)：56-59。
李霞,兰英(2007),基于社会文化学派理论的第二语言学习观及其述评,《国外外语教学》(2)：54-61。
李秀莲,全红(2004),教师话语策略与学生交际能力的培养,《南昌大学学报》35(4)：158-160。
刘芳(2009),大学英语课堂话语分析与外语教学,硕士学位论文。哈尔滨：黑龙江大学。
刘润清、许嘉璐、王福祥(1996),《中国语言学现状与展望》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
刘学惠,钱薇薇(2007),协商互动与即时输出：课堂语言学习探微,《外语与 外语教学》(11)：25-29。
隆利容(2009),语言课堂教师话语的性别差异研究,硕士学位论文。武汉：中南民族大学。
牛瑞英(2007),社会文化理论和第二语言发展的起源述介,《外语教学与研究》(4)：314-316。
裴学梅,李敏(2006),高中英语课堂互动模式和教师话语抽样研究, 《安徽师范大学学报》34(5)： 591-595。
沈小涛(2004),试论英语教学的课堂互动策略,《西南民族大学学报》(11)：292-293。
宋德云,潘龙明(2000),Improving English teacher talk,《中国英语教学》(4)：51-53。
孙彦彦(2009),大学英语课堂教师话语对于学习者输出的影响,硕士学位论文。济南：山东师范大学。
孙泽文(2008),课堂互动教学研究,硕士学位论文。武汉：华中师范大学。
谭春健(2003),口语教学中的角色定位及教学话语选择,《云南师范大学学报》(7)：7-11。
谭照亮(2007),大学英语的交互式课堂教学模式,《天津市经理学院学报》(1)：59-60。
王海珊(2005),教与学的有效互动——支架式教学,《福建师范大学学报》(1)：6-9。
王秀村(2003),实现互动式教学的六项措施,《学生与研究生教育》(5)：24。
王银泉(1999),第33届国际英语教师协会(IATEFL)年会侧记,《外语界》(4)：36。
翁晓梅,于应机(2007),大学英语口语互动课堂中教师话语的调查与分析,《宁波工程学院学报》19(3)：124-126。
吴希(2008),大学英语课堂互动教学思路探讨,《苏州教育学院学报》25(4)：104-106。
谢文怡(2008),从英语语音谈教师话语的调整,《外语电化教学》(106)：65-68。
许峰(2003),大学英语课堂提问的调查与分析,《国外外语教学》(3)：30-33。
胥国红(2006),大学英语教师课堂反馈的功能研究, 《西安外国语学院学报》14(4)： 63-67。
杨蓉蓉(2008),大学英语优秀教师话语的调查与分析,硕士学位论文。南京：南京师范大学。
喻红(2007),课堂环境下的外语教师话语分析：理论基础与研究现状, 《广西大学学报》29(4)：132-136.
于薇(2005),巧用self-talking和课堂设计提高英语口头表达能力, 《黑龙江教育学院学报》24(2)：112-113。
张敏(2002),从自然言语与教师话语的风格差异谈教师话语的效能,《外语教学》23(4)：41-44。
张庆宇(2000),论高校英语口语教师的角色定位,《外语与外语教学》(8)：58-60。
赵晓红(1998),大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析,《外语界》(2)：17-22。
郑佩芸(2003),课堂提问与焦虑控制, 《外语界》(3)：26-30。
郑新民(2005),社会文化学与英语教学, 《外国语言文学》(1)：21-29。
周军平(2006),教师话语与第二语言习得, 《外语教学》27(3)：69-72。
周仁英(2007),大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析,硕士学位论文。沈阳：沈阳师范大学。
周星,周韵 (2002),大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析,《外语教学与研究》34(1)：59-68。
朱枫(2005),大学英语支架式教学实证研究,《哈尔滨学院学报》(1)：129-132。
邹为诚(2000),语言输入的机会和条件, 《外语界》(1)：5-10。
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning, Applied Linguistics 5:156-171.
Bentley, D. & Watts, M. (1992). Communicating in school science:Groups, tasks, and problem solving. London:The Farmer Press.
Brock, M., Yu, B., & Wong, M. (1992). "Journaling" together:Collaborative diary-keeping and teacher development. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia (Eds.), Perspectives on Second Language Teacher Development (pp. 295-307). Hong Kong:City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise:A functional analysis, Review of Educational Research 51.
Brown, D. & Douglas, H. (1994). Teaching by principles:an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Butler, D., Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback as self-regulated learning:A theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational Review 65,245-281.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback:an empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations, Studies in Second Language Acquisition (15),105.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms:Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. (2000). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Crookes, G. & Long, M. (1987). Task-based second language teaching:A brief report, Modern English Teacher 24 (5),26-8.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypotheses, Language Learning 46,529-555.
DiCamilla, F.J. & Antn, M. (2004). Private speech:A study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners, Inter actional Journal of Applied Linguistics (14),36-69.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies, TESOL Quarterly (29),55-85.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1991). The interaction hypothesis:a critical evaluation. Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom, RELC (28),179-210.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning, Applied Linguistics 19(1),1-23.
Francis, C.I., John, B. & Florence, Y. O. (2009). The nature of interaction in English language classrooms, The International Journal of Learning 16(7),217-227.
Gaies, S.J. (1985). Peer Involvement in Language Learning. Language in Education: Theory and Practice No.60. CAL/ERIC. Orlando, Fla.:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Gass, S. & T. Pica. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition, The Modern Language Journals 82(3),299-307.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R. & Lam, J. (1997). Developing discussion skills in the ESL classroom, ELT Journal 1(2),135-143.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD:Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision, The Modern Language Journal (84),51-68.
Hakansson, G. (1986). Quantitative studies of teacher talk. Kasper (ed.). Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Harmer, J. (2000). How to Teach English. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning:present fields of application. Strasbourg:Council of Europe.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use:Exploring error analysis. London:Longman.
Johnson, K. E. (2000). Understanding communication in second language classroom. Beijing:People's Education Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis:Issues and implication. London:Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research Norwood. New York:Ablex Pub. Corp.
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 379-394). New York:Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Long, M. (1983). Native Speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of meaning, Applied Linguistics (4),126-141.
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies:An interactionist perspective. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp.253-279). Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
Long, M. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. Gass, Susan M. & Madden, Carolyna. Input in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:New House Publishers.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Ritchie, W.C. & T.K. Bhatia (eds.). Hand Book of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Lyster, R & Ranta, L. (1997).Corrective feedback and learner uptake:negotiation of form in communicative classrooms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition (19),37-66.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In Dekeyser, Robert. (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language:Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Marion, W. & Robert, L. B. (2006). Psychology for language teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Nikula, T. (2002). Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness:A look at EFL and content-based classroom settings, Pragmatics 12 (4),447-467.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology:A textbook for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.
Penny, Ur. (2000). A course in language teaching:Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. & Long, M. H. (1986). The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. R.R Day (ed.). Talking to Learner: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass:Newbury House.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the Definition of Feedback, Behavioural Science 28 (1), 4-13.
Richard, C. (2002). Supportive teacher talk:the importance of the F-move, ELT Journal 56(2),117-127.
Richards, J. C. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Schmidt, R., Kendrick, H., & Kim, Y. (2005). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science 18 (2),119-144.
Seliger, H. & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
Spolsky, B. (2000). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence:Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis:Just reading and writing aren't enough, Canadian Modern Language Review (50),158-164.
Swain, M & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning:The uses of the first language, Language Teaching Research (4),251-274.
Thomas, T., Karen, E. J. & Tracy, S.D. (2010). A Sociocultural analysis of teacher talk in inquiry-based professional development, Language Teaching Research 14(2),129-140.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching, ELT Journal 50(1),9-15.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996b) Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: a typology, British Educational Research Journal 22,389-404.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction:teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom, Language Teaching Research 6(1),3-23.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input:The input hypothesis and the development of second-language competence, Applied Linguistics (8),95-110.
Wilga, M. R. (2000). Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge:Oxford University Press.
Woods, A., Fletcher, P. & Hughes, A. (1986). Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xu Xiaohui. (2010). Analysis of teacher talk on the basis of relevance theory, Canadian Social Science 6(3),45-50.
陈勤(2004),教师话语、课堂角色与语言学习,《四川师范大学学报》31 (4)：82-86。
范栩(2004),大学英语教师话语分析,《华南农业大学学报》3(2)：151-156。
何安平(2003),基于语料库的英语教师话语分析, 《现代外语季刊》(4)：161-170。
胡青球(2007),优秀英语教师课堂话语特征分析,《山东外语教学》(1)：54-58。
胡学文(2003),教师话语的特征及功能, 《山东外语教学》(3)：39-43。
黄小苹(2006),课堂话语微观分析：理论、方法与实践,《外语研究》(5)：53-57。
姜浩,周华(2006),激发英语课堂互动的有效途径——分组活动，《中美英语教学》(4)：43-45。
李俊芬(2008),大学英语教学中有效教师反馈策略模式初探，《外语教学理论与实践》(2)：51-52。
李姗姗(2008)，大学英语课堂上教师话语的研究,硕士学位论文。长春；东北师范大学。
李素枝(2008)，中外教师课堂话语策略对比研究,《西安外国语大学学报》(1)：56-59。
李霞,兰英(2007),基于社会文化学派理论的第二语言学习观及其述评,《国外外语教学》(2)：54-61。
李秀莲,全红(2004),教师话语策略与学生交际能力的培养,《南昌大学学报》35(4)：158-160。
刘芳(2009),大学英语课堂话语分析与外语教学,硕士学位论文。哈尔滨：黑龙江大学。
刘润清、许嘉璐、王福祥(1996),《中国语言学现状与展望》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
刘学惠,钱薇薇(2007),协商互动与即时输出：课堂语言学习探微,《外语与 外语教学》(11)：25-29。
隆利容(2009),语言课堂教师话语的性别差异研究,硕士学位论文。武汉：中南民族大学。
牛瑞英(2007),社会文化理论和第二语言发展的起源述介,《外语教学与研究》(4)：314-316。
裴学梅,李敏(2006),高中英语课堂互动模式和教师话语抽样研究, 《安徽师范大学学报》34(5)： 591-595。
沈小涛(2004),试论英语教学的课堂互动策略,《西南民族大学学报》(11)：292-293。
宋德云,潘龙明(2000),Improving English teacher talk,《中国英语教学》(4)：51-53。
孙彦彦(2009),大学英语课堂教师话语对于学习者输出的影响,硕士学位论文。济南：山东师范大学。
孙泽文(2008),课堂互动教学研究,硕士学位论文。武汉：华中师范大学。
谭春健(2003),口语教学中的角色定位及教学话语选择,《云南师范大学学报》(7)：7-11。
谭照亮(2007),大学英语的交互式课堂教学模式,《天津市经理学院学报》(1)：59-60。
王海珊(2005),教与学的有效互动——支架式教学,《福建师范大学学报》(1)：6-9。
王秀村(2003),实现互动式教学的六项措施,《学生与研究生教育》(5)：24。
王银泉(1999),第33届国际英语教师协会(IATEFL)年会侧记,《外语界》(4)：36。
翁晓梅,于应机(2007),大学英语口语互动课堂中教师话语的调查与分析,《宁波工程学院学报》19(3)：124-126。
吴希(2008),大学英语课堂互动教学思路探讨,《苏州教育学院学报》25(4)：104-106。
谢文怡(2008),从英语语音谈教师话语的调整,《外语电化教学》(106)：65-68。
许峰(2003),大学英语课堂提问的调查与分析,《国外外语教学》(3)：30-33。
胥国红(2006),大学英语教师课堂反馈的功能研究, 《西安外国语学院学报》14(4)： 63-67。
杨蓉蓉(2008),大学英语优秀教师话语的调查与分析,硕士学位论文。南京：南京师范大学。
喻红(2007),课堂环境下的外语教师话语分析：理论基础与研究现状, 《广西大学学报》29(4)：132-136.
于薇(2005),巧用self-talking和课堂设计提高英语口头表达能力, 《黑龙江教育学院学报》24(2)：112-113。
张敏(2002),从自然言语与教师话语的风格差异谈教师话语的效能,《外语教学》23(4)：41-44。
张庆宇(2000),论高校英语口语教师的角色定位,《外语与外语教学》(8)：58-60。
赵晓红(1998),大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析,《外语界》(2)：17-22。
郑佩芸(2003),课堂提问与焦虑控制, 《外语界》(3)：26-30。
郑新民(2005),社会文化学与英语教学, 《外国语言文学》(1)：21-29。
周军平(2006),教师话语与第二语言习得, 《外语教学》27(3)：69-72。
周仁英(2007),大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析,硕士学位论文。沈阳：沈阳师范大学。
周星,周韵 (2002),大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析,《外语教学与研究》34(1)：59-68。
朱枫(2005),大学英语支架式教学实证研究,《哈尔滨学院学报》(1)：129-132。
邹为诚(2000),语言输入的机会和条件, 《外语界》(1)：5-10。