高职英语课堂活动分析
|
摘要
本篇论文,基于输入-输出理论和形式意义教学理论,通过对课堂教学活动原始数据的定量分析,对高职英语课堂教学活动中输入和输出活动、形式关注和意义关注活动进行了描述性研究。
输入和输出一直以来是二语习得研究者们关注和探究的课题。二十世纪八十年代Krashen(1981;1994)的输入假说提出了理解性输入的概念。他认为:语言学习者的二语熟练程度与学习者被提供的输入的时间长短有正相关,即:学习者接收到的输入越多,学会语言越快。他主张输入通过语言修饰和提供语境支撑使输入富于理解性。
J.Harmer(1983)提出平衡活动的观点(a balanced activities approach),强调了课堂活动中平衡Krashen所说的输入和以交流为目的输出的必要性。
Long(1981)认为经互动修饰的输入比单纯语言修饰的输入更重要。Swain(1985)的输出理论提出通过注意/引发、对语言假设的检验和对元语言的反思,促进输出语言习得的准确性。
随着第二语言课堂研究的兴起,二语课堂中语法教学的研究扩展到对语言形式关注和意义关注(focus on form and focus on meaning)的研究。二语习得理论的日趋成熟,使语言形式和意义的课堂实证研究有了牢固的基础和理论框架。此方面的研究在国外九十年代就已开展,但国内的研究相对较少,尤其在高职英语课堂领域涉及更少。
二语课堂中学生所参与的学习活动,无论是口头或是书面的,都是对目的语的某种操作——接受或产出;而且也会有某种侧重——形式或意义。因此对二语课堂中的“活动”进行分析,有助于我们理解和评判二语课堂作为语言学习环境和资源的性质和特征。这种理解能够帮助教师对课堂活动的理性选择。
本研究的目的在于通过对课堂活动进行深入细致的描述,了解二语课堂的教学现状,希望对课堂活动实施者和有关教学者有所启发。研究问题包括:
1)课堂活动中有哪些输入和输出活动?
2)输入和输出活动比例如何?是否有一定平衡?
3)是否有形式注意、意义注意活动或两类之间的任何活动?分配比例如何?
4)在形式注意活动中,最关注的是何语言形式?
研究的数据来源主要是课堂观察。研究者观察并实录了某高职院校的八节英语课;对录音加以文字转写后,围绕以下方面进行分析:1)课堂上输入活动和输出活动比例,;2)关注语言形式的活动和关注语言意义的活动之比例;,3)形式与意义有机融合的活动的比例。研究结果如下:
首先,在输入—输出维度上,输入活动所占课堂时间比例明显高于输出活动所占比例,分别为68%和25%;输入活动的形式有:听录音,默读课文,教师讲授;输出活动主要是教师控制下的问答形式和做巩固练习的形式。第二,在形式—意义维度上,课堂活动主要偏重于关注语言形式的活动,没有提供任何以意义为主导的活动;第三,没有将形式与意义有机融合的活动;第四,关注形式的活动中主要以关注词义为主。
以上研究发现对教学实践具有一定的启示意义:教师作为课堂活动的计划和组织者应平衡输入活动和输出活动,针对高职学生语言技能的要求适当增加输出活动的比例;平衡形式关注活动和意义活动,增加意义为主导的课堂活动。
This thesis is a descriptive research on EFL classroom activities in a vocational college as they actually happened. "An activity is described as a task that has been selected to achieve a particular teaching/learning goal." (Richards and Lockhart 2000: pl61) "Activities" in the present study refers to what the students are doing in L2 class to achieve the goal of learning English.
The relative importance of input and output is a key issue in the field of second language acquisition, which has caused much discussion and debate. Input Hypothesis claims that comprehensible input can facilitate acquisition and that there are positive correlations between the amount of reading reported and proficiency. Input must be made comprehensible either by modifying it or by means of contextual props.
Output Hypothesis proposes that output can facilitate L2 accuracy because of three functions: noticing/triggering, hypothesis testing and metalinguistic reflection. With the development of SLA theory, researchers point that successful instructed language learning requires both extensive L2 input and opportunities for output.
J. Harmer (1983) put forward "a balanced activities approach", emphasizing the balanced activities between roughly-tuned input and communicative activities.
With the development of classroom research, research on grammar teaching has extended to the one on focus-on-form and focus-on meaning. Theories of second language acquisition have laid a solid foundation of classroom research. Overseas research on formal instruction has been carried out since 1990s but few have been done in China, especially in vocational colleges.
Based on Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis and some theories about form-focused instructions, the study categorizes the EFL classroom activities into such types as input activities, output activities on the one hand; and focus-on-forms activities, focus-on-form activities and focus-on-meaning activities, on the other hand. Analysis on these activities helps us understand and evaluate the nature and characteristics of L2 classroom, the context and resources of second language learning. It can also assist the teachers to make wiser choices of classroom activities.
To understand teaching and learning context of L2 classroom in vocational college, the researcher explores the situation of classroom activities. The research questions include:
1) What kinds of input activities (IA) and output activities (OA) are there in class?
2) What percentages do input activities (IA) and output activities (OA) account for in the entire amount respectively? Is there any balance?
3) Are there focus-on-forms activities (FFSA), focus-on-form (FFA) or focus-on-meaning activities (FMA)? What percentage do they account for respectively?
4) What particular types of form do teachers and learners focus on in FFSA and FFA?
The researcher collects data from observation. Eight English classed were observed with audio-recording and then transcribed and analyzed. The major findings include:
First, input activities take up more of class time(68%) than output activities do,(25%). The input activities involved listening to the recording, reading the text, teachers' presentation. The interaction in input activities is not very high and most of interactions are in teacher-to-all-learner pattern. The limited output activities were confined to teacher-initiated question-answer practice and some written exercises.
Second, nearly all of the class time is occupied by focus-on-forms activities including: grammar explanation, word usage learning, and pronunciation correction and sentence translation. No typical meaning-focused output activities such as free talk and group discussions were observed.
Third, teachers and learners mainly focused their attention on lexical forms in FFSA.
The present study can illuminate pedagogy, that is, teachers, as the managers of the classes, can organize activities that keep input and output activities in balance. Learners should be engaged in focus-on-meaning activities, performing both oral and written tasks. Teachers should increase output activities focused predominately on meaning.
输入和输出一直以来是二语习得研究者们关注和探究的课题。二十世纪八十年代Krashen(1981;1994)的输入假说提出了理解性输入的概念。他认为:语言学习者的二语熟练程度与学习者被提供的输入的时间长短有正相关,即:学习者接收到的输入越多,学会语言越快。他主张输入通过语言修饰和提供语境支撑使输入富于理解性。
J.Harmer(1983)提出平衡活动的观点(a balanced activities approach),强调了课堂活动中平衡Krashen所说的输入和以交流为目的输出的必要性。
Long(1981)认为经互动修饰的输入比单纯语言修饰的输入更重要。Swain(1985)的输出理论提出通过注意/引发、对语言假设的检验和对元语言的反思,促进输出语言习得的准确性。
随着第二语言课堂研究的兴起,二语课堂中语法教学的研究扩展到对语言形式关注和意义关注(focus on form and focus on meaning)的研究。二语习得理论的日趋成熟,使语言形式和意义的课堂实证研究有了牢固的基础和理论框架。此方面的研究在国外九十年代就已开展,但国内的研究相对较少,尤其在高职英语课堂领域涉及更少。
二语课堂中学生所参与的学习活动,无论是口头或是书面的,都是对目的语的某种操作——接受或产出;而且也会有某种侧重——形式或意义。因此对二语课堂中的“活动”进行分析,有助于我们理解和评判二语课堂作为语言学习环境和资源的性质和特征。这种理解能够帮助教师对课堂活动的理性选择。
本研究的目的在于通过对课堂活动进行深入细致的描述,了解二语课堂的教学现状,希望对课堂活动实施者和有关教学者有所启发。研究问题包括:
1)课堂活动中有哪些输入和输出活动?
2)输入和输出活动比例如何?是否有一定平衡?
3)是否有形式注意、意义注意活动或两类之间的任何活动?分配比例如何?
4)在形式注意活动中,最关注的是何语言形式?
研究的数据来源主要是课堂观察。研究者观察并实录了某高职院校的八节英语课;对录音加以文字转写后,围绕以下方面进行分析:1)课堂上输入活动和输出活动比例,;2)关注语言形式的活动和关注语言意义的活动之比例;,3)形式与意义有机融合的活动的比例。研究结果如下:
首先,在输入—输出维度上,输入活动所占课堂时间比例明显高于输出活动所占比例,分别为68%和25%;输入活动的形式有:听录音,默读课文,教师讲授;输出活动主要是教师控制下的问答形式和做巩固练习的形式。第二,在形式—意义维度上,课堂活动主要偏重于关注语言形式的活动,没有提供任何以意义为主导的活动;第三,没有将形式与意义有机融合的活动;第四,关注形式的活动中主要以关注词义为主。
以上研究发现对教学实践具有一定的启示意义:教师作为课堂活动的计划和组织者应平衡输入活动和输出活动,针对高职学生语言技能的要求适当增加输出活动的比例;平衡形式关注活动和意义活动,增加意义为主导的课堂活动。
This thesis is a descriptive research on EFL classroom activities in a vocational college as they actually happened. "An activity is described as a task that has been selected to achieve a particular teaching/learning goal." (Richards and Lockhart 2000: pl61) "Activities" in the present study refers to what the students are doing in L2 class to achieve the goal of learning English.
The relative importance of input and output is a key issue in the field of second language acquisition, which has caused much discussion and debate. Input Hypothesis claims that comprehensible input can facilitate acquisition and that there are positive correlations between the amount of reading reported and proficiency. Input must be made comprehensible either by modifying it or by means of contextual props.
Output Hypothesis proposes that output can facilitate L2 accuracy because of three functions: noticing/triggering, hypothesis testing and metalinguistic reflection. With the development of SLA theory, researchers point that successful instructed language learning requires both extensive L2 input and opportunities for output.
J. Harmer (1983) put forward "a balanced activities approach", emphasizing the balanced activities between roughly-tuned input and communicative activities.
With the development of classroom research, research on grammar teaching has extended to the one on focus-on-form and focus-on meaning. Theories of second language acquisition have laid a solid foundation of classroom research. Overseas research on formal instruction has been carried out since 1990s but few have been done in China, especially in vocational colleges.
Based on Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis and some theories about form-focused instructions, the study categorizes the EFL classroom activities into such types as input activities, output activities on the one hand; and focus-on-forms activities, focus-on-form activities and focus-on-meaning activities, on the other hand. Analysis on these activities helps us understand and evaluate the nature and characteristics of L2 classroom, the context and resources of second language learning. It can also assist the teachers to make wiser choices of classroom activities.
To understand teaching and learning context of L2 classroom in vocational college, the researcher explores the situation of classroom activities. The research questions include:
1) What kinds of input activities (IA) and output activities (OA) are there in class?
2) What percentages do input activities (IA) and output activities (OA) account for in the entire amount respectively? Is there any balance?
3) Are there focus-on-forms activities (FFSA), focus-on-form (FFA) or focus-on-meaning activities (FMA)? What percentage do they account for respectively?
4) What particular types of form do teachers and learners focus on in FFSA and FFA?
The researcher collects data from observation. Eight English classed were observed with audio-recording and then transcribed and analyzed. The major findings include:
First, input activities take up more of class time(68%) than output activities do,(25%). The input activities involved listening to the recording, reading the text, teachers' presentation. The interaction in input activities is not very high and most of interactions are in teacher-to-all-learner pattern. The limited output activities were confined to teacher-initiated question-answer practice and some written exercises.
Second, nearly all of the class time is occupied by focus-on-forms activities including: grammar explanation, word usage learning, and pronunciation correction and sentence translation. No typical meaning-focused output activities such as free talk and group discussions were observed.
Third, teachers and learners mainly focused their attention on lexical forms in FFSA.
The present study can illuminate pedagogy, that is, teachers, as the managers of the classes, can organize activities that keep input and output activities in balance. Learners should be engaged in focus-on-meaning activities, performing both oral and written tasks. Teachers should increase output activities focused predominately on meaning.
引文
1. Allwright, B. 1988. Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.
2. Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., Cummins, J., 1990. Aspects of classroom treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language educatuon, In: Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummmins, J., Swain, M.(Eds), The development of L2 Prodiciency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-82
3. Borg, S. 1998. Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study [J] TESOL Quarterly, 32/1: 9-38.
4. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (b) 2002. Metalanguage in Focus on Form in the Communicative Classroom [J] Language Awareness 11/1:1-13.
5. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (a) 2004. Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices [J] Applied Linguistics, 25/2: 243-272
6. Barkhuizen, G. P., 1998. Discovering learners' perceptions of EFL classroom teaching/learning activities in South African context [J] TESOL Quarterly, 32/1: 85-108.
7. Bacaro, E. 2001 Analyzing student teacher's codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making [J] The Modern Language Journal, 4, 531-548
8. Doughty, C & Williams, J. (1998). Issue and terminology. [A] In Doughty, C & Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p3
9. Doughty, C & Varela, E (1998) Communicative focus on form [A] In Doughty, C & Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p3
10. Eslami-Rasekh Zohreh & Valizadeh Katayoon. 2004. Classroom activities viewed from different perspectives: learners' voice and teachers' voice [J] TESL-EJ, 8/3,1-14.
11. Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc.
12. Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. [C] Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction, [A]In Ellis, R. (Eds.) Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Ellis, R. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. 2001. Preemptive focus in form in the ESL classroom.[J]TESOL Quarterly,35/3,407-457.
15.Basturkmen,H.& Loewen,S.Ellis,R.2002.Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom.[J]Language Awareness,11/1,1-13.
16.Ellis,R.(2003).Task-based language learning and teaching.[C]Oxford:Oxford University Press.
17.Ellis,R.2005.Principles of instructed language learning[J]System,33,209-224.
18.Ellis,R.,Loewen,S.,& Erlam,R.2006.Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of Grammar[J]Studies of Second Language Acquisition,28:339-368.
19.Gass,S.1997.Input,interaction and Second Language Learner Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.Gales,J.S.(1983).The investigation of language classroom Process[J]TESOL Quarterly,17/2,205-217.
21.Garret,R & Shortall,T.2002.Learners' evolution of teacher-fronted and student-centered classroom activities[J]Language Teaching Research 6(1):25-57.
22.Harmer,J.1983.The-Practice of English Language Teaching New York:Longman Inc.
23.Hawkey,R.2006.Teacher and Learner Perception of Language Learning Activity[J]ELT Journal,60/3,242-252.
24.Jingzi,Huang.2003.Activities as a vehicle for linguistic and sociocultural knowledge at the elementary level.[J]Language Teaching Research,7/1,3-33.
25.Johnson,K.,1995.Understanding Communication in Second Language Classroom.[C]Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
26.Krashen,S.1982.Principles and practice in Second Language Acquisition.[A]Oxford:Pergamon.
27.Krashen,S.1985.The Input hypothesis:Issues and Implications.[A]London:Longman.
28.Krashen,S.2004.Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis:Some Suggestions.[A]Presented at 13~(th)International Symposium and Book Fair on Language Teaching,Taipei,Taiwan
29.Leng Hui,Jiang Xin,& Jiang Yi.2004.Morning Discussion as Communicative Activity.[J]English Teaching Forum,51/2,6-11.
30.Littlewood,W.2004.The task-based approach:some questions and suggestions[J]ELT Journal,58,319-326
31.Lightbrown,M & Spada,N.1999.How Language Are Learned[M]Oxford:Oxford University Press.
32.Loewen,S.2005.Incidental focus on form and second language learning[J]Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,361-386.
33.Loewen,S.& Philip,J.2006.Recasts in the Adult English L2 Classroom:Characteristics,Explicitness,and Effectiveness[J]The Modern Language Journal,90(5):536-552.
34.Long,M.H.1981.Input,interaction and Second Language Acquisition In Winitz(ed.)Native Language and Foreign Acquisition.Annals of the New York Academy of Science.
35.Long,M.H.1983(a).Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input[J]Applied Linguistics,4,126-41.
36.Long,M.,1983(b).Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research.[J]TESOL Quarterly,17,359-382
37.Long,M,H.& Robinson,P.1998.Focus on Form:Theory,research,and practice[A]In Doughty,C.& Williams,J.(eds.)Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.P:25
38.Long,M.H.1983.Inside the "black box":Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning.In Seliger,H.& Long,M.H.(eds.),3-32
39.Richards,J,C.& Lockhart,C.2000.Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom.[M]北京:人民教育出版社.
40.Swain,M.1985.Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A]In Gass,S.M.& Madden,C.G.(eds).
41.Swain,M & Lapkin,S.1995.Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second language leaning.[J]Applied Linguistics,16,371-391.
42.Swain,M.1995.Three functions of output in second language learning.In Cook,G &Seidlhofer,B[A]Principle and practice in applied linguistic:Studies in Honor of H.G.Widdowson.
43.Stevens.F.1983.Activities to Promote Learning and Communication in the Second Language Classroom.[J]TESOL Quarterly,17/2,129-271.Williams,J.1999.Learner-generated attention to form.[J]Language Learning.49/4:583-625
44.Sharwood Smith M.1986.Comprehension vs.Acquisition:two ways of processing input.[J] Applied Linguistics 7:239-56
45.Sheen,R.2003.Focus on form-a myth in the making?[J]ELT Journal,57/3,225-233.
46.Sheen,R.2004.Form-meaning relationship.[J]Modern English Teaching,13/4,42-45Zhenhui,Rao.1996.Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese methods.[J]Research in the Teaching of English,30/4,458-471.
47.Zhenhui,Rao.2002.Chinese students'perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL.[J]System,30,85-105.
48.高海英 戴曼纯.2004.中国学生英语关系从句外置结构的习得-显性教学与隐性教学的实证研究.[J]外语教学与研究,36/6,444-450.
49.高强,李艳 2006.国外语言形式教学新近研究进展述评.[J]外语教学.27/5,53-58.
50.黄一丹 2006 An Analysis of the Input Features of Teacher Talk in EFL Student-teaching Classroom.[D]Unpublished MA.Thesis.Nanjing Normal University
51.何莲珍 汪敏 2004.交际课堂中的形式教学-国外近期研究综述.[J]外语与外语教学.178:23-27.
52.刘学惠 2005.课堂环境下的第二语言习得:理论框架与分析单位[J]外语教学与研究.10:54-58
53.李炯英 2005 从建构主义理论谈二语习得中的语言输入[J]中国外语 3:38-40
54.夏纪梅 冯芃芃 2006.现代外语教学理念与行动[M]高教出版社
55.王毅敏 2003 从建构主义学习理论看英语情境教学[J]外语教学 24/2:85-87
56 王银泉 1999.第33届国际英语教师协会(IATEFL)年会侧记[J]外语界 第2期 54-55。
57.俞理明 2004 语言迁移与二语习得-回顾、反思和研究[]上海:上海外语教育出版社
58.周星,周韵2002.大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J]外语教学与研究.34/1,59-66.
59.张香存 2005.中国大学英语教师对“Focus on forms”和“Focus on forms”教学方法的认识.[J]外语教学,26/3,65-68.
60.赵晓红 1998.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析[J]外语界第2期 17-22.
61.赵国霞 2002.Classroom Teacher-Student Conversational Interaction and Its Effect on Students' Oral English Proficiency.[D]Unpublished MA.Thesis.Nanjing Normal University.
2. Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., Cummins, J., 1990. Aspects of classroom treatment: toward a more comprehensive view of second language educatuon, In: Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummmins, J., Swain, M.(Eds), The development of L2 Prodiciency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-82
3. Borg, S. 1998. Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study [J] TESOL Quarterly, 32/1: 9-38.
4. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (b) 2002. Metalanguage in Focus on Form in the Communicative Classroom [J] Language Awareness 11/1:1-13.
5. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. & Ellis, R. (a) 2004. Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices [J] Applied Linguistics, 25/2: 243-272
6. Barkhuizen, G. P., 1998. Discovering learners' perceptions of EFL classroom teaching/learning activities in South African context [J] TESOL Quarterly, 32/1: 85-108.
7. Bacaro, E. 2001 Analyzing student teacher's codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making [J] The Modern Language Journal, 4, 531-548
8. Doughty, C & Williams, J. (1998). Issue and terminology. [A] In Doughty, C & Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p3
9. Doughty, C & Varela, E (1998) Communicative focus on form [A] In Doughty, C & Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p3
10. Eslami-Rasekh Zohreh & Valizadeh Katayoon. 2004. Classroom activities viewed from different perspectives: learners' voice and teachers' voice [J] TESL-EJ, 8/3,1-14.
11. Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc.
12. Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. [C] Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction, [A]In Ellis, R. (Eds.) Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Ellis, R. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. 2001. Preemptive focus in form in the ESL classroom.[J]TESOL Quarterly,35/3,407-457.
15.Basturkmen,H.& Loewen,S.Ellis,R.2002.Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom.[J]Language Awareness,11/1,1-13.
16.Ellis,R.(2003).Task-based language learning and teaching.[C]Oxford:Oxford University Press.
17.Ellis,R.2005.Principles of instructed language learning[J]System,33,209-224.
18.Ellis,R.,Loewen,S.,& Erlam,R.2006.Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of Grammar[J]Studies of Second Language Acquisition,28:339-368.
19.Gass,S.1997.Input,interaction and Second Language Learner Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.Gales,J.S.(1983).The investigation of language classroom Process[J]TESOL Quarterly,17/2,205-217.
21.Garret,R & Shortall,T.2002.Learners' evolution of teacher-fronted and student-centered classroom activities[J]Language Teaching Research 6(1):25-57.
22.Harmer,J.1983.The-Practice of English Language Teaching New York:Longman Inc.
23.Hawkey,R.2006.Teacher and Learner Perception of Language Learning Activity[J]ELT Journal,60/3,242-252.
24.Jingzi,Huang.2003.Activities as a vehicle for linguistic and sociocultural knowledge at the elementary level.[J]Language Teaching Research,7/1,3-33.
25.Johnson,K.,1995.Understanding Communication in Second Language Classroom.[C]Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
26.Krashen,S.1982.Principles and practice in Second Language Acquisition.[A]Oxford:Pergamon.
27.Krashen,S.1985.The Input hypothesis:Issues and Implications.[A]London:Longman.
28.Krashen,S.2004.Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis:Some Suggestions.[A]Presented at 13~(th)International Symposium and Book Fair on Language Teaching,Taipei,Taiwan
29.Leng Hui,Jiang Xin,& Jiang Yi.2004.Morning Discussion as Communicative Activity.[J]English Teaching Forum,51/2,6-11.
30.Littlewood,W.2004.The task-based approach:some questions and suggestions[J]ELT Journal,58,319-326
31.Lightbrown,M & Spada,N.1999.How Language Are Learned[M]Oxford:Oxford University Press.
32.Loewen,S.2005.Incidental focus on form and second language learning[J]Studies in Second Language Acquisition,27,361-386.
33.Loewen,S.& Philip,J.2006.Recasts in the Adult English L2 Classroom:Characteristics,Explicitness,and Effectiveness[J]The Modern Language Journal,90(5):536-552.
34.Long,M.H.1981.Input,interaction and Second Language Acquisition In Winitz(ed.)Native Language and Foreign Acquisition.Annals of the New York Academy of Science.
35.Long,M.H.1983(a).Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input[J]Applied Linguistics,4,126-41.
36.Long,M.,1983(b).Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research.[J]TESOL Quarterly,17,359-382
37.Long,M,H.& Robinson,P.1998.Focus on Form:Theory,research,and practice[A]In Doughty,C.& Williams,J.(eds.)Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition [C]Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.P:25
38.Long,M.H.1983.Inside the "black box":Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning.In Seliger,H.& Long,M.H.(eds.),3-32
39.Richards,J,C.& Lockhart,C.2000.Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom.[M]北京:人民教育出版社.
40.Swain,M.1985.Communicative competence:some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development[A]In Gass,S.M.& Madden,C.G.(eds).
41.Swain,M & Lapkin,S.1995.Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate:A step towards second language leaning.[J]Applied Linguistics,16,371-391.
42.Swain,M.1995.Three functions of output in second language learning.In Cook,G &Seidlhofer,B[A]Principle and practice in applied linguistic:Studies in Honor of H.G.Widdowson.
43.Stevens.F.1983.Activities to Promote Learning and Communication in the Second Language Classroom.[J]TESOL Quarterly,17/2,129-271.Williams,J.1999.Learner-generated attention to form.[J]Language Learning.49/4:583-625
44.Sharwood Smith M.1986.Comprehension vs.Acquisition:two ways of processing input.[J] Applied Linguistics 7:239-56
45.Sheen,R.2003.Focus on form-a myth in the making?[J]ELT Journal,57/3,225-233.
46.Sheen,R.2004.Form-meaning relationship.[J]Modern English Teaching,13/4,42-45Zhenhui,Rao.1996.Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese methods.[J]Research in the Teaching of English,30/4,458-471.
47.Zhenhui,Rao.2002.Chinese students'perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL.[J]System,30,85-105.
48.高海英 戴曼纯.2004.中国学生英语关系从句外置结构的习得-显性教学与隐性教学的实证研究.[J]外语教学与研究,36/6,444-450.
49.高强,李艳 2006.国外语言形式教学新近研究进展述评.[J]外语教学.27/5,53-58.
50.黄一丹 2006 An Analysis of the Input Features of Teacher Talk in EFL Student-teaching Classroom.[D]Unpublished MA.Thesis.Nanjing Normal University
51.何莲珍 汪敏 2004.交际课堂中的形式教学-国外近期研究综述.[J]外语与外语教学.178:23-27.
52.刘学惠 2005.课堂环境下的第二语言习得:理论框架与分析单位[J]外语教学与研究.10:54-58
53.李炯英 2005 从建构主义理论谈二语习得中的语言输入[J]中国外语 3:38-40
54.夏纪梅 冯芃芃 2006.现代外语教学理念与行动[M]高教出版社
55.王毅敏 2003 从建构主义学习理论看英语情境教学[J]外语教学 24/2:85-87
56 王银泉 1999.第33届国际英语教师协会(IATEFL)年会侧记[J]外语界 第2期 54-55。
57.俞理明 2004 语言迁移与二语习得-回顾、反思和研究[]上海:上海外语教育出版社
58.周星,周韵2002.大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J]外语教学与研究.34/1,59-66.
59.张香存 2005.中国大学英语教师对“Focus on forms”和“Focus on forms”教学方法的认识.[J]外语教学,26/3,65-68.
60.赵晓红 1998.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析[J]外语界第2期 17-22.
61.赵国霞 2002.Classroom Teacher-Student Conversational Interaction and Its Effect on Students' Oral English Proficiency.[D]Unpublished MA.Thesis.Nanjing Normal University.