小组讨论中话轮转换策略培训效果研究
|
摘要
依据《大学英语课程教学要求》,“大学英语的教学目标是培养学生的英语综合应用能力,特别是听说能力……”(Department of Higher Education,2007)。目前,中国非英语专业大学生的口语表达能力普遍低于他们的阅读能力,我们常常会在英语课堂口语活动小组讨论中发现,许多学生并不知道如何采用行之有效的交流方法与其他同学进行沟通,除去语言知识的不足之外,缺乏一定的话轮转换策略也是影响其进行有效交流的重要因素之一。因而本研究意在探讨计算机辅助教学环境下英语口语活动中话轮转换策略的培训是否对学生口语水平发展有积极影响。为验证这一点,作者设计了为期十周的话轮转换策略培训,由任课教师按照培训方案在课堂口语教学活动中实施话轮转换的培训计划。培训内容包括：话轮夺取策略、话轮维持策略和话轮放弃策略,培训主要针对课堂活动之一—三／五人的小组讨论进行。
本研究是基于计算机辅助教学环境下的小组讨论中话轮转换策略的培训对学生的口语水平发展有积极影响这一假设,通过对从实验组和对照组得出的教学数据进行分析,试图回答以下几个问题：
1)经过十周话轮转换策略培训,实验组与对照组被试在口语水平上是否存在差异?
2)经过十周话轮转换策略培训,实验组与对照组被试在话轮转换策略使用上是否存在差异?
3)实验组小组讨论中的话轮转换策略培训是否对促进学生后测
口语水平发展有积极影响?若有,哪种话轮转换策略对促进学生口语水平发展最有效?
本课题研究的实验对象是我校的一门计算机辅助的英语视听说课程的两个平行班级的60名非英语专业大二学生,实验过程中将他们分为实验组和对照组,均由同一位教师授课,学生均来自于计算机科学和信息技术专业。用于本课题的30名研究样本是从这两组中各随机抽取15人构成。该课程的整个教学过程都是在配备了WELL-6000系统和多媒体英语语言技能训练系统的数字语言实验室中进行。学生每次的课堂口语活动,包括两人对话、三／五人小组讨论和一分钟个人陈述都可以通过WELL-6000系统进行实时录音和采集。为测量本课题的培训效果,作者协同任课教师对被试学生的口语活动进行了前测与后测,并辅以前后测问卷调查。被试学生的全部问卷都是在多媒体英语语言技能训练系统上完成,全部的数据结果也是由系统自动生成,确保了本课题研究数据的有效性。
在对以上相关数据,包括两组被试前后测分数、录音转写文本和话轮转换策略使用情况进行统计分析后,借助数学统计软件SPSS17.0的数据分析,作者得出了以下结论：
小组讨论中话轮转换策略培训对促进学生口语水平发展有积极影响,
第一,根据对照组与实验组被试前后测口语实际表达水平的情况对比可得知,实验组被试较对照组被试有进步；
第二,根据对照组与实验组被试话轮转换策略使用情况对比可得知,与对照组相比,实验组被试在接受十周培训之后话轮转换策略使用频次大量增加；
第三,就实验组被试话轮转换策略使用与其后测口语水平相关性而言,数据分析发现总体上显著相关,即话轮维持策略和话轮放弃策略对提高被试后测口语水平帮助很大。
第四,基于计算机网络的教学环境对被试口语产出有积极地效果,这一点也在被试的后测问卷反馈中得到印证,因为基于计算机网络的教学环境不仅确保了各种课堂活动的正常实施,而且也为学生练习使用目标语提供了更多机会,同时还为本研究的数据有效性提供了保障。
本研究的价值体现在以下三个方面：第一,与以往研究多基于传统课堂教学环境不同,本研究基于一门计算机辅助的英语视听说课程,其优势在于整个教学过程都是在配备了WELL-6000系统和多媒体英语语言技能训练系统的语言实验室中进行。基于这一环境,教师可以对整个班级随机分组,学生可以与组内任何同学进行语言交流。此外,上述系统可以对学生的课堂口语活动进行实时录音并自动上传录音数据,提高了数据收集的有效程度。
第二,不同于以往多聚焦于大学英语课堂中师生互动,即课堂提问中师生问话轮转换的研究,本研究将重点放在了大学英语课堂口语活动中的学生互动,即小组讨论中学生的话轮转换使用情况；
第三,与以往研究多基于单一口语成绩评分标准不同,鉴于本研究前后测的形式均为五分钟的小组讨论,故而其整合了Yang (1999:53-57)和Nunn (2000:172-175)的评分标准。前者为我国大学英语四级口语考试的评分标准,小组讨论为其组成部分之一,而后者首次对小组讨论中策略能力—话轮转换策略进行评估并提出了详细标准。
本研究采用会话分析的研究方法来探讨计算机辅助教学环境下英语口语活动中话轮转换策略的培训是否对促进学生英语口语水平提高有影响,因为会话分析法为研究者分析真实语言数据,如课堂中学生间互动口语产出提供了有效方法。本次实证研究的启示与局限如下：
首先,教师应将小组讨论中的话轮转换策略培训作为提高学生英语口语交际能力的一个重要途径,纳入其课堂口语教学活动中。但这种培训不应局限于话轮转换策略知识的讲授,更多的应着重基于真实语料的示范和依据不同话题的大量练习。
其次,鉴于时间与精力有限,本研究的其它不足之处还在于：样本小、培训时间短、前后测测试话题比较单一,对于本研究培训中某些策略,如话轮夺取策略未能有效帮助提高学生口语水平的原因分析不够深入。希望本研究能够为对中国大学英语口语教学感兴趣的教师及研究者有所启发。
Based on the College English Curriculum Requirements,"The objective of College English is to develop students'ability to use English in an all-round way, especially in listening and speaking."(Department of Higher Education,2007) However, the reality is that non-English majors' oral competence in China is far from satisfaction. Especially in one of the usual oral activities of English classes—group discussion, some students do not know how to communicate with each other in an effective manner, lack of some knowledge of turn-taking strategies is an important factor besides the insufficiency of language knowledge. This research therefore aims to explore whether the training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors'group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance or not. To verify this, a ten-week training of turn-claiming, turn-holding, and turn-yielding strategies on students' in-class activities—discussions within groups of3-5students at a CALL-based English audio-video speaking class (EAVSC) was designed by the author and the training was conducted by the course teacher of the two classes.
The research was put into practice based on the hypothesis that the training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors'group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance. Through analyses of correlated data obtained from the teacher's two English audio-video speaking classes, this research attempts to answer the following questions:
1) After the ten-week turn-taking strategy training, are there any differences of the subjects' English oral performance between the experimental group and control group?
2) After the ten-week turn-taking strategy training, are there any differences of turn-taking strategies use between the subjects of the experimental group and those of the control group?
3) Whether the turn-taking strategy training in experimental group has positive effect on their oral performance? If the answer is yes, which turn-taking strategy is the most effective one in improving subjects'English oral performance?
This research was done in a computer assisted English audio-video speaking course (EAVSC) at the author's university. Control group and experimental group have60non-English major sophomores altogether, they were from the same teacher's two paralleled classes, and majored in Computer Science and Technology and Information Technology. The30 samples of this research were randomly selected15subjects from each group. The whole teaching process of this course was conducted in a digital language lab which installed the WELL-6000system and the English language skill training system. Students' in-class activities performance, including pair work dialogue, group discussion (within3-5students), one minute personal statement could be recorded by the WELL-6000system. To measure the effects of the training, pre-and post tests along with follow-up questionnaires were carried out. Meanwhile, students' feedbacks on the pre-and post-questionnaires were carried out on the English language skill training system and the correlated data were collected automatically by the system, which assures the data validity and reliability of this research.
After the processing of the above data, including the scores of subjects in the two tests and the transcription and calculation of the turn-taking strategies used by the subjects, through the SPSS17.0, several conclusions are drawn as follows:
The training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors' group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance.
First, from the comparison of the control group and experimental group subjects' oral performance, that is, the pre-and post-tests scores, it could conclude that subjects in the experimental group got larger achievements than the ones in the control group did.
Second, from the comparison of the control group and experimental group subjects' turn-taking strategy use; it could conclude that, compared with the control group, the application of the experimental group subjects' turn-taking strategies increases greatly after ten-week's training.
Third, with regard to experimental group subjects' turn-taking strategies use and oral performance in the post-test, it was found that there existed significant correlation in general, which means that the application of turn-holding and turn-yielding strategies was helpful in improving their oral performance.
Fourth, the positive effect of the CALL-based teaching environment on subjects' oral production was proved from their feedback on the post-questionnaire, since it assures the conduction of the in-class activities, provides more opportunities for students to practice in the target language as well as guarantees the reliability and validity of this research.
The value of this research lies in the following three aspects:
Firstly, different form the previous research which was done in the traditional teaching environment; this research was conducted in a CALL-based English audio-video speaking class, the advantage is that the whole teaching process was carried out in a digital language lab which installed the WELL-6000system and the English language skill training system. Under this teaching environment, the teacher can arrange group discussion randomly and students can talk to any group member. Besides, the above systems could record students'oral activities and generate data automatically which assures the effectiveness and scientificalness of the data collection.
Secondly, different from the previous research which laid its emphasis on teacher and students'interaction in college English classes, that is, the turn-taking in classroom questioning between teacher and students; this research put its focus on the interaction among students, in other words, it aims to study the turn-taking strategy use among students in group discussion.
Thirdly, different from the previous research which based on sole rating standard, this research combined the rating standard of Yang (1999:53-57) and Nunn's (2000:172-175), since the form of the two tests in this research are a five-minute group discussion which existed some similarity with their testing. As for Yang, he makes the assessment criteria of CET Spoken English Test and group discussion is one of its major components; as for Nuun, he makes the first reliable attempt at evaluating the strategic competence—turn-taking and puts forward detailed standards.
This research adopts the methodology of conversation analysis to explore if the training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors' group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance, since conversation analysis provides a useful approach for the researchers to analyze real language data, recordings of the spoken output of the interaction among learners themselves in classrooms. By doing the empirical research, several implications and limitations are drawn as follows:
In the first place, the teacher should take turn-taking strategy training in group discussion as a feasible channel to develop students' oral communicative language ability and integrate it into daily in-class activities. Yet, this training should not limit to the merely imparting of turn-taking strategy knowledge, more attention should be paid to authentic corpus-based demonstration and different topic-based practice.
In the second place, due to limited time and energy, this research has some limitations, such as the sample is small, the time of the training is short, and the testing topic is fixed, and the analysis of the reason why some strategies fails to help improve students' oral proficiency is not thorough, for instance, the turn-claiming strategy. It hopes to shed some light on teachers and researches who are interested in the field of college oral English teaching in China.
本研究是基于计算机辅助教学环境下的小组讨论中话轮转换策略的培训对学生的口语水平发展有积极影响这一假设,通过对从实验组和对照组得出的教学数据进行分析,试图回答以下几个问题：
1)经过十周话轮转换策略培训,实验组与对照组被试在口语水平上是否存在差异?
2)经过十周话轮转换策略培训,实验组与对照组被试在话轮转换策略使用上是否存在差异?
3)实验组小组讨论中的话轮转换策略培训是否对促进学生后测
口语水平发展有积极影响?若有,哪种话轮转换策略对促进学生口语水平发展最有效?
本课题研究的实验对象是我校的一门计算机辅助的英语视听说课程的两个平行班级的60名非英语专业大二学生,实验过程中将他们分为实验组和对照组,均由同一位教师授课,学生均来自于计算机科学和信息技术专业。用于本课题的30名研究样本是从这两组中各随机抽取15人构成。该课程的整个教学过程都是在配备了WELL-6000系统和多媒体英语语言技能训练系统的数字语言实验室中进行。学生每次的课堂口语活动,包括两人对话、三／五人小组讨论和一分钟个人陈述都可以通过WELL-6000系统进行实时录音和采集。为测量本课题的培训效果,作者协同任课教师对被试学生的口语活动进行了前测与后测,并辅以前后测问卷调查。被试学生的全部问卷都是在多媒体英语语言技能训练系统上完成,全部的数据结果也是由系统自动生成,确保了本课题研究数据的有效性。
在对以上相关数据,包括两组被试前后测分数、录音转写文本和话轮转换策略使用情况进行统计分析后,借助数学统计软件SPSS17.0的数据分析,作者得出了以下结论：
小组讨论中话轮转换策略培训对促进学生口语水平发展有积极影响,
第一,根据对照组与实验组被试前后测口语实际表达水平的情况对比可得知,实验组被试较对照组被试有进步；
第二,根据对照组与实验组被试话轮转换策略使用情况对比可得知,与对照组相比,实验组被试在接受十周培训之后话轮转换策略使用频次大量增加；
第三,就实验组被试话轮转换策略使用与其后测口语水平相关性而言,数据分析发现总体上显著相关,即话轮维持策略和话轮放弃策略对提高被试后测口语水平帮助很大。
第四,基于计算机网络的教学环境对被试口语产出有积极地效果,这一点也在被试的后测问卷反馈中得到印证,因为基于计算机网络的教学环境不仅确保了各种课堂活动的正常实施,而且也为学生练习使用目标语提供了更多机会,同时还为本研究的数据有效性提供了保障。
本研究的价值体现在以下三个方面：第一,与以往研究多基于传统课堂教学环境不同,本研究基于一门计算机辅助的英语视听说课程,其优势在于整个教学过程都是在配备了WELL-6000系统和多媒体英语语言技能训练系统的语言实验室中进行。基于这一环境,教师可以对整个班级随机分组,学生可以与组内任何同学进行语言交流。此外,上述系统可以对学生的课堂口语活动进行实时录音并自动上传录音数据,提高了数据收集的有效程度。
第二,不同于以往多聚焦于大学英语课堂中师生互动,即课堂提问中师生问话轮转换的研究,本研究将重点放在了大学英语课堂口语活动中的学生互动,即小组讨论中学生的话轮转换使用情况；
第三,与以往研究多基于单一口语成绩评分标准不同,鉴于本研究前后测的形式均为五分钟的小组讨论,故而其整合了Yang (1999:53-57)和Nunn (2000:172-175)的评分标准。前者为我国大学英语四级口语考试的评分标准,小组讨论为其组成部分之一,而后者首次对小组讨论中策略能力—话轮转换策略进行评估并提出了详细标准。
本研究采用会话分析的研究方法来探讨计算机辅助教学环境下英语口语活动中话轮转换策略的培训是否对促进学生英语口语水平提高有影响,因为会话分析法为研究者分析真实语言数据,如课堂中学生间互动口语产出提供了有效方法。本次实证研究的启示与局限如下：
首先,教师应将小组讨论中的话轮转换策略培训作为提高学生英语口语交际能力的一个重要途径,纳入其课堂口语教学活动中。但这种培训不应局限于话轮转换策略知识的讲授,更多的应着重基于真实语料的示范和依据不同话题的大量练习。
其次,鉴于时间与精力有限,本研究的其它不足之处还在于：样本小、培训时间短、前后测测试话题比较单一,对于本研究培训中某些策略,如话轮夺取策略未能有效帮助提高学生口语水平的原因分析不够深入。希望本研究能够为对中国大学英语口语教学感兴趣的教师及研究者有所启发。
Based on the College English Curriculum Requirements,"The objective of College English is to develop students'ability to use English in an all-round way, especially in listening and speaking."(Department of Higher Education,2007) However, the reality is that non-English majors' oral competence in China is far from satisfaction. Especially in one of the usual oral activities of English classes—group discussion, some students do not know how to communicate with each other in an effective manner, lack of some knowledge of turn-taking strategies is an important factor besides the insufficiency of language knowledge. This research therefore aims to explore whether the training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors'group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance or not. To verify this, a ten-week training of turn-claiming, turn-holding, and turn-yielding strategies on students' in-class activities—discussions within groups of3-5students at a CALL-based English audio-video speaking class (EAVSC) was designed by the author and the training was conducted by the course teacher of the two classes.
The research was put into practice based on the hypothesis that the training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors'group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance. Through analyses of correlated data obtained from the teacher's two English audio-video speaking classes, this research attempts to answer the following questions:
1) After the ten-week turn-taking strategy training, are there any differences of the subjects' English oral performance between the experimental group and control group?
2) After the ten-week turn-taking strategy training, are there any differences of turn-taking strategies use between the subjects of the experimental group and those of the control group?
3) Whether the turn-taking strategy training in experimental group has positive effect on their oral performance? If the answer is yes, which turn-taking strategy is the most effective one in improving subjects'English oral performance?
This research was done in a computer assisted English audio-video speaking course (EAVSC) at the author's university. Control group and experimental group have60non-English major sophomores altogether, they were from the same teacher's two paralleled classes, and majored in Computer Science and Technology and Information Technology. The30 samples of this research were randomly selected15subjects from each group. The whole teaching process of this course was conducted in a digital language lab which installed the WELL-6000system and the English language skill training system. Students' in-class activities performance, including pair work dialogue, group discussion (within3-5students), one minute personal statement could be recorded by the WELL-6000system. To measure the effects of the training, pre-and post tests along with follow-up questionnaires were carried out. Meanwhile, students' feedbacks on the pre-and post-questionnaires were carried out on the English language skill training system and the correlated data were collected automatically by the system, which assures the data validity and reliability of this research.
After the processing of the above data, including the scores of subjects in the two tests and the transcription and calculation of the turn-taking strategies used by the subjects, through the SPSS17.0, several conclusions are drawn as follows:
The training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors' group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance.
First, from the comparison of the control group and experimental group subjects' oral performance, that is, the pre-and post-tests scores, it could conclude that subjects in the experimental group got larger achievements than the ones in the control group did.
Second, from the comparison of the control group and experimental group subjects' turn-taking strategy use; it could conclude that, compared with the control group, the application of the experimental group subjects' turn-taking strategies increases greatly after ten-week's training.
Third, with regard to experimental group subjects' turn-taking strategies use and oral performance in the post-test, it was found that there existed significant correlation in general, which means that the application of turn-holding and turn-yielding strategies was helpful in improving their oral performance.
Fourth, the positive effect of the CALL-based teaching environment on subjects' oral production was proved from their feedback on the post-questionnaire, since it assures the conduction of the in-class activities, provides more opportunities for students to practice in the target language as well as guarantees the reliability and validity of this research.
The value of this research lies in the following three aspects:
Firstly, different form the previous research which was done in the traditional teaching environment; this research was conducted in a CALL-based English audio-video speaking class, the advantage is that the whole teaching process was carried out in a digital language lab which installed the WELL-6000system and the English language skill training system. Under this teaching environment, the teacher can arrange group discussion randomly and students can talk to any group member. Besides, the above systems could record students'oral activities and generate data automatically which assures the effectiveness and scientificalness of the data collection.
Secondly, different from the previous research which laid its emphasis on teacher and students'interaction in college English classes, that is, the turn-taking in classroom questioning between teacher and students; this research put its focus on the interaction among students, in other words, it aims to study the turn-taking strategy use among students in group discussion.
Thirdly, different from the previous research which based on sole rating standard, this research combined the rating standard of Yang (1999:53-57) and Nunn's (2000:172-175), since the form of the two tests in this research are a five-minute group discussion which existed some similarity with their testing. As for Yang, he makes the assessment criteria of CET Spoken English Test and group discussion is one of its major components; as for Nuun, he makes the first reliable attempt at evaluating the strategic competence—turn-taking and puts forward detailed standards.
This research adopts the methodology of conversation analysis to explore if the training of turn-taking strategy in non-English majors' group discussion in CALL environments has positive effect on their oral performance, since conversation analysis provides a useful approach for the researchers to analyze real language data, recordings of the spoken output of the interaction among learners themselves in classrooms. By doing the empirical research, several implications and limitations are drawn as follows:
In the first place, the teacher should take turn-taking strategy training in group discussion as a feasible channel to develop students' oral communicative language ability and integrate it into daily in-class activities. Yet, this training should not limit to the merely imparting of turn-taking strategy knowledge, more attention should be paid to authentic corpus-based demonstration and different topic-based practice.
In the second place, due to limited time and energy, this research has some limitations, such as the sample is small, the time of the training is short, and the testing topic is fixed, and the analysis of the reason why some strategies fails to help improve students' oral proficiency is not thorough, for instance, the turn-claiming strategy. It hopes to shed some light on teachers and researches who are interested in the field of college oral English teaching in China.
引文
[1]Bachman, Lf. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:Oxford University Press,85.
[2]Boden, Deirdre. (1994). The business of talk:Organization in Action. Cambridge:Polity Press, 66.
[3]Canale, M. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language and communication. London and New York:Longman.1983,2-27.
[4]Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1 (1):1-47.
[5]Chamot, A.U. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA):An Update. In P.A Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), Academic success for English language learners:Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp.87-101). White Plains, NY: Longman.
[6]Cohen, AD. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:Longman.
[7]Department of Higher Education. (2007). College English curriculum requirements. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1-25.
[8]Department of Higher Education. (2007). New English Curriculum for Chinese Primary Schools and Junior/Senior Middle Schools-Experimental Version drafted by the Education Ministry of the PRC. Beijing:Beijing Normal University Press,9-27.
[9]Grenfell, M., Harris, V (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies:In theory and practice. London:Rout ledge.
[10]Hewei, Pengyi & Yuhui. (2010). English Pragmatics:A Course book. Beijing:Higher Education Press,112-118.
[11]Huang Yan. (1987). Turn-taking system in conversation. Foreign language teaching and research, (1),21-23.
[12]He, Zhaoxiong. (2000). A new introduction to Pragmatics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,309.
[13]Hymes, D. (1967). Model of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues,23 (2):8-28.
[14]Jan Renkema. (2009). Introduction to discourse studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,163-165.
[15]Jiang, Wangqi. (2000). Pragmatics theories& applications. Peking University Press, 248-252.
[16]Li, Yajuan. (2007). Turn-taking and college oral English class. Journal of Anhui University of Science and Technology (social Science),9(4),81-84.
[17]Li, "Yuying, Ma, Keli & Liu, Shaofang. (2008). Research on turn-taking mechanism in group discussion — a probe into new approaches to English oral competence training. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition),7(10),91-94.
[18]Linda, A Wood, Rolf, O. Kroger. (2008). Doing Discourse Analysis:Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,3-21.
[19]Liu, Qin. (2010). Construction of and validation study on analytic rating scales for oral English proficiency of Chinese tertiary learners. Shanghai:Fudan University,59-68.
[20]Liu, Senlin. (2007). Pragmatics. Beijing:Social Science Literature Press,257-270.
[21]Lu, Zhihong, Hou, Leijuan & Huang, Xiaohui. (2010). A Student-centred Teaching Model in an ICT-based English Audio-video Speaking Class. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT),6(3), 101-123.
[22]Lu, Zhihong, Steele, L. (2006). Learning English through Culture:Viewing, Listening. Speaking. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[23]Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics:An Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,139.
[24]Mitchell, R., Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London:Arnold,94.
[25]Norbert Schmitt. (2008). An introduction to applied linguistics. Beijing:Limited & Beijing World Publishing Corporation,56-225.
[26]North, B. (1997). Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence. Language Teaching,30(2),93-100.
[27]Nunn, R. (2000). Designing rating scales for small-group interaction. ELT Journal,54(2): 169-178.
[28]Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies:What every teacher should know. Boston, Mass:Newbury House.
[29]Riggenbach, H. (1998). Evaluating learner interactional skills:conversation at the micro level. Ⅱ Talking and testing:discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,57.
[30]Sacks, H., Shegloff, E. A.& Jefferson, G. (1974). Asimplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, (50),696-735.
[31]Saville, N., Hargreaves, P. (1999). Assessing speaking in the revised FCE. EFLT Journal,53 (1):42-51.
[32]Schegloff, E. A., Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, (8):289-327.
[33]Schiffrin. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford:Blackwell,239-253.
[34]Sinclair, J., Coulthard, D. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London:Oxford University Press.
[35]Starkey Duncan. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,23 (2):283-292.
[36]Stenstro, M. A B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London and New York: Longman.
[37]Stephen B. Ryan.1996. Encouraging "real world" fluency via turn-taking in small group discussions in the Japanese university EFL classroom. http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/fluencyjapanese.html.
[38]Sun Feng, Li Jiajun & Li Chao. (2008). A contrast of turn-taking between Chinese and Indian college students. Journal ofJiangsu University (Social Science Edition),10 (6):84-87.
[39]Xie, Rongrong. (2007). On turn-taking skills in classrooms. Journal of Ningbo Radio and TV University,5 (4):96-98.
[40]Yan Li. (2010). An discourse analysis of a higher vocational college English classroom. Language and Literature Learning,12,134-136.
[41]Yan, Xiaohua. (2008). Analysis of turn-taking in oral English classroom teaching. Journal of Pingdingshan Institute of Teaching,17(1):76-78.
[42]Yi, Yingli, Sun Qiyao. (2002). Analysis of turn-taking in college English Class. Journal of Harbin University,23(5):17-21.
[43]Zhen, Fengchao. (2009). English learner's oral communication ability—A Perspective of Corpus Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Jiao Tong University,33-83.
[44]曹春春.(2003).《语篇分析》.济南：山东大学出版社,162-205.
[45]高晓芳.(2008).《英语语用学》.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,201-205.
[46]冷静.(2012).英语小组会话中话轮转换策略的应用.《新课程研究》,(04)：33-34.
[47]李悦蛾,范宏雅(2002).《话语分析》.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[48]吕继英(2008). Turn-taking in group discussion, CET (IV)-SET:an Emprical Research.于韩德顺(主编).《外语教学与文化》(41-42页).天津：天津科学技术出版社.
[49]全国大学英语四、六级考试委员会.(1999).《大学英语四、六级考试口语考试大纲及样题》.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[50]史航.(2009).英语课堂教师分配话轮的技巧.《教学与管理》(理论版),(9)：131-132.
[51]舒静.(2005).大学英语课堂中的学生话轮调查.《武汉科技学院学报》,18(12)：153-155.
[52]杨春燕.(2010).大学英语课堂师生话轮转换之语篇分析.《海外英语》,(7)：136-137.
[53]杨惠中.(1999).大学英语口语考试设计原则.《外语界》,3(75)：53-57.
[54]袁德玉.(2009).英语口语课堂教学中外教与学生之间话轮转换研究.《牡丹江教育学学报》,(117)：144-146.
[55]张应林.(2006).《语篇分析学》.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,32-37.
[2]Boden, Deirdre. (1994). The business of talk:Organization in Action. Cambridge:Polity Press, 66.
[3]Canale, M. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language and communication. London and New York:Longman.1983,2-27.
[4]Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1 (1):1-47.
[5]Chamot, A.U. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA):An Update. In P.A Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (Eds.), Academic success for English language learners:Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp.87-101). White Plains, NY: Longman.
[6]Cohen, AD. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:Longman.
[7]Department of Higher Education. (2007). College English curriculum requirements. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1-25.
[8]Department of Higher Education. (2007). New English Curriculum for Chinese Primary Schools and Junior/Senior Middle Schools-Experimental Version drafted by the Education Ministry of the PRC. Beijing:Beijing Normal University Press,9-27.
[9]Grenfell, M., Harris, V (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies:In theory and practice. London:Rout ledge.
[10]Hewei, Pengyi & Yuhui. (2010). English Pragmatics:A Course book. Beijing:Higher Education Press,112-118.
[11]Huang Yan. (1987). Turn-taking system in conversation. Foreign language teaching and research, (1),21-23.
[12]He, Zhaoxiong. (2000). A new introduction to Pragmatics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,309.
[13]Hymes, D. (1967). Model of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues,23 (2):8-28.
[14]Jan Renkema. (2009). Introduction to discourse studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,163-165.
[15]Jiang, Wangqi. (2000). Pragmatics theories& applications. Peking University Press, 248-252.
[16]Li, Yajuan. (2007). Turn-taking and college oral English class. Journal of Anhui University of Science and Technology (social Science),9(4),81-84.
[17]Li, "Yuying, Ma, Keli & Liu, Shaofang. (2008). Research on turn-taking mechanism in group discussion — a probe into new approaches to English oral competence training. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition),7(10),91-94.
[18]Linda, A Wood, Rolf, O. Kroger. (2008). Doing Discourse Analysis:Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,3-21.
[19]Liu, Qin. (2010). Construction of and validation study on analytic rating scales for oral English proficiency of Chinese tertiary learners. Shanghai:Fudan University,59-68.
[20]Liu, Senlin. (2007). Pragmatics. Beijing:Social Science Literature Press,257-270.
[21]Lu, Zhihong, Hou, Leijuan & Huang, Xiaohui. (2010). A Student-centred Teaching Model in an ICT-based English Audio-video Speaking Class. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT),6(3), 101-123.
[22]Lu, Zhihong, Steele, L. (2006). Learning English through Culture:Viewing, Listening. Speaking. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[23]Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics:An Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,139.
[24]Mitchell, R., Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London:Arnold,94.
[25]Norbert Schmitt. (2008). An introduction to applied linguistics. Beijing:Limited & Beijing World Publishing Corporation,56-225.
[26]North, B. (1997). Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence. Language Teaching,30(2),93-100.
[27]Nunn, R. (2000). Designing rating scales for small-group interaction. ELT Journal,54(2): 169-178.
[28]Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies:What every teacher should know. Boston, Mass:Newbury House.
[29]Riggenbach, H. (1998). Evaluating learner interactional skills:conversation at the micro level. Ⅱ Talking and testing:discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company,57.
[30]Sacks, H., Shegloff, E. A.& Jefferson, G. (1974). Asimplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, (50),696-735.
[31]Saville, N., Hargreaves, P. (1999). Assessing speaking in the revised FCE. EFLT Journal,53 (1):42-51.
[32]Schegloff, E. A., Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, (8):289-327.
[33]Schiffrin. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford:Blackwell,239-253.
[34]Sinclair, J., Coulthard, D. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London:Oxford University Press.
[35]Starkey Duncan. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,23 (2):283-292.
[36]Stenstro, M. A B. (1994). An introduction to spoken interaction. London and New York: Longman.
[37]Stephen B. Ryan.1996. Encouraging "real world" fluency via turn-taking in small group discussions in the Japanese university EFL classroom. http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/fluencyjapanese.html.
[38]Sun Feng, Li Jiajun & Li Chao. (2008). A contrast of turn-taking between Chinese and Indian college students. Journal ofJiangsu University (Social Science Edition),10 (6):84-87.
[39]Xie, Rongrong. (2007). On turn-taking skills in classrooms. Journal of Ningbo Radio and TV University,5 (4):96-98.
[40]Yan Li. (2010). An discourse analysis of a higher vocational college English classroom. Language and Literature Learning,12,134-136.
[41]Yan, Xiaohua. (2008). Analysis of turn-taking in oral English classroom teaching. Journal of Pingdingshan Institute of Teaching,17(1):76-78.
[42]Yi, Yingli, Sun Qiyao. (2002). Analysis of turn-taking in college English Class. Journal of Harbin University,23(5):17-21.
[43]Zhen, Fengchao. (2009). English learner's oral communication ability—A Perspective of Corpus Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Jiao Tong University,33-83.
[44]曹春春.(2003).《语篇分析》.济南：山东大学出版社,162-205.
[45]高晓芳.(2008).《英语语用学》.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,201-205.
[46]冷静.(2012).英语小组会话中话轮转换策略的应用.《新课程研究》,(04)：33-34.
[47]李悦蛾,范宏雅(2002).《话语分析》.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[48]吕继英(2008). Turn-taking in group discussion, CET (IV)-SET:an Emprical Research.于韩德顺(主编).《外语教学与文化》(41-42页).天津：天津科学技术出版社.
[49]全国大学英语四、六级考试委员会.(1999).《大学英语四、六级考试口语考试大纲及样题》.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
[50]史航.(2009).英语课堂教师分配话轮的技巧.《教学与管理》(理论版),(9)：131-132.
[51]舒静.(2005).大学英语课堂中的学生话轮调查.《武汉科技学院学报》,18(12)：153-155.
[52]杨春燕.(2010).大学英语课堂师生话轮转换之语篇分析.《海外英语》,(7)：136-137.
[53]杨惠中.(1999).大学英语口语考试设计原则.《外语界》,3(75)：53-57.
[54]袁德玉.(2009).英语口语课堂教学中外教与学生之间话轮转换研究.《牡丹江教育学学报》,(117)：144-146.
[55]张应林.(2006).《语篇分析学》.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,32-37.