高中英语课堂教师反馈与师生互动研究
|
摘要
本文旨在研究高中课堂英语教师反馈如何影响师生互动。本研究以五个班级的课堂语料为研究对象,其中有四名英语教师，五个班级的学生。语音资料来自东北师范大学英语学院的数据库。本文主要以社会互动理论为依据,其主张所有的认知发展,包括语言的发展都是源于人与人之间的社会交流。(Patsy M. Lightbown and Nian Spada:2002：44).维果斯基的社会交互理论的重要构建就是媒介。而作为课堂教学媒介的教师通过教师提问,教师反馈等方式帮助学生在他们的能力之内的语言习得。本文重点研究教师反馈如何影响着课堂上的师生互动。研究问题：(1)高中英语课堂教师反馈类型有哪些?(2)各类教师反馈类型所占比例如何?(3)教师反馈语如何影响课堂师生互动。
本文的材料研究分析采用量化和质化两种手段。作者通过从社会互动理论分析所得数据,绘制了三个表格,并且基于所得的数据分析解决了三个研究问题进而得出以下结论：
首先,研究中的大多数教师意识到教师反馈的重要性,在课堂当中都做出了适当的反馈。其次,从各种教师反馈类型的分布,作者发现扩展和解释话语反馈占课堂教师反馈的最大比重,此发现出乎意料。与之形成对比的是重诉性反馈,国外的研究显示其被使用的频率最高,然而却就有较弱的…作用。本文的研究结果与之相反,其所占比例最小。显性纠错性反馈则排在倒数第二位,这一结果与之前的研究相符,这一结果显示教师对于显性纠错比较慎重,使用显性纠错多少研究者发现其会影像学习者的积极性,其鼓励课堂互动的作用明显不如教师的积极反馈。而对于积极反馈,作者将其分为简单赞扬和赞扬加重复。数据分析结果显示赞扬加重复则为大多数教师的首选而非简单赞扬。此结果表明教师认为赞扬加重复不但可以对学生的回答予以肯定也可以通过重复对答案加以强调并增加学生的输入。
再次,通过分析教师反馈次数和反馈类型与师生互动之间的关系,作者发现通常教师采用越多的话语反馈,就会创造越多的师生互动；并且教师采用的反馈类型越丰富则课堂的师生互动则越活跃。
最后,作者通过质化分析讨论了不同教师反馈在课堂当中对师生互动的影响。对于具体的某种教师反馈进行了利弊的分析,什么样的教师反馈有益于师生间的课堂互动,什么样的教师反馈会挫败学生的自信心和学习积极性,并进而影响师生的互动以及二语的习得。
通过数据分析和结果讨论作者提出了几点启示和对其它的相关研究一点建议。大体有如下三点启示：(1)教师尽量保护学生的情感。(2)针对不同课堂教师可采用不同纠错方法。(3)教师以学生为中心,尽量让学生参与更多课堂互动。(4)教师可采用多样反馈方式,特别是话语反馈以激发学生动机。如果在师生课堂互动过程中注重以上的几点原则,那么教师就可以得到更好的课堂师生互动效果,并且更好的为二语习得创造和谐,活跃的氛围,以便学生的语言交际能力的提高。
This study investigates teacher feedbacks and T-S interactions in common English classes of high schools. The study chose five classes of grade two as the objects of this research. Four teachers and five class-students are involved in it. The audio material is from the database of School of Foreign Languages in Northeast Normal University. This essay takes the stand of social interaction theory elaborating that all cognitive development, including language development, arises as a result of social interaction between individuals (Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada: 2002:44). The key construct of Vygosky's interactionist theories is Mediation. The role of the teacher is a mediator in the classroom through teacher's question, teacher's feedbacks towards students, to help learners to produce linguistic forms that lie outside their existing competence. The main questions addressed are: (1) what kinds of teacher feedback the high school English teacher constantly use? (2)What is the proportion of these types of teacher feedback? (3)How does the teacher feedback influence the interaction of the EFL?
The study highlights how the teacher feedback affects the classroom T-S interaction. Qualitative and quantitative methods are both used in the study. Through the analysis of the data from a social interactive theoretical perspective, three tables were formed and based on the generated data three questions were answered and the relevant findings are summerized as the following:
1) In all the five classes to the answers of the students most of the teachers provided feedbacks. Most teachers have noticed the importance of teacher feedback and have contributed an appropriate portion of teacher feedbacks in the classroom interaction.
2) From the data of the proportion of each types of teacher feedback in the classes, the author found the expansion or elaboration type of discoursal feedbacks unexpectly occupies the greatest portion of the teacher feedback moves. By contrast recast which was considered as the most preferable one in language study abroad took the least amount of the ratio. The explicit correction was least used next to recast by teachers in the class which suggests that as the previous research showed that it is less favored by teachers compared especially with the positive feedbacks for being less courageous to motivate students. The cases in which this kind of feedback usually happens are when the teacher tries to correct pronunciations or grammars. In the classes that the students for most of the time can handle these problems, so there are few explicit corrections in all these classes. With regard to positive feedbacks the author divided it into simple approval and approval with repetition. And the result shows that the latter one is more preferred by teachers. It suggests that in most of the teachers' mind that approval with repetition is not only an evaluation of the answer to the inquired students, but it also functions as an emphasis and a certain comprehensible input to the rest of the class.
3) From the analysis of the relation between the amount and types of teacher feedbacks in classes and the time of the T-S interaction, the author finds generally that the more the teacher chose the discoursal feedbacks, the more the T-S interactions are there in classes. And the more various types of teacher feedbacks the teachers applied the more T-S interactions it will create in classes.
4) The author illustrated the affect of different teacher feedbacks on T-S interaction through a qualitative method elaboration, and discussed the disadvantages and disadvantages of certain teacher feedbacks in the data. Based on all these analysis and findings several implications are proposed and suggestions for future studies. There are generally three policies drawn from the research: (1) the teacher protects the motivation of the students as much as possible. (2) the teacher can be selective in correcting the errors and mistakes of the students in different types of classes. (3) the teacher takes the students as the center of the classes and create more chances for students to participate in classes. (4) the teacher can apply various types of teacher feedbacks, especially the discoursal feedbacks to stimulate the motivation of students. With the guidance of these policies a teacher may get a better T-S interaction in an English class and create a harmonious and active atmosphere which will benefit the second language of the students.
本文的材料研究分析采用量化和质化两种手段。作者通过从社会互动理论分析所得数据,绘制了三个表格,并且基于所得的数据分析解决了三个研究问题进而得出以下结论：
首先,研究中的大多数教师意识到教师反馈的重要性,在课堂当中都做出了适当的反馈。其次,从各种教师反馈类型的分布,作者发现扩展和解释话语反馈占课堂教师反馈的最大比重,此发现出乎意料。与之形成对比的是重诉性反馈,国外的研究显示其被使用的频率最高,然而却就有较弱的…作用。本文的研究结果与之相反,其所占比例最小。显性纠错性反馈则排在倒数第二位,这一结果与之前的研究相符,这一结果显示教师对于显性纠错比较慎重,使用显性纠错多少研究者发现其会影像学习者的积极性,其鼓励课堂互动的作用明显不如教师的积极反馈。而对于积极反馈,作者将其分为简单赞扬和赞扬加重复。数据分析结果显示赞扬加重复则为大多数教师的首选而非简单赞扬。此结果表明教师认为赞扬加重复不但可以对学生的回答予以肯定也可以通过重复对答案加以强调并增加学生的输入。
再次,通过分析教师反馈次数和反馈类型与师生互动之间的关系,作者发现通常教师采用越多的话语反馈,就会创造越多的师生互动；并且教师采用的反馈类型越丰富则课堂的师生互动则越活跃。
最后,作者通过质化分析讨论了不同教师反馈在课堂当中对师生互动的影响。对于具体的某种教师反馈进行了利弊的分析,什么样的教师反馈有益于师生间的课堂互动,什么样的教师反馈会挫败学生的自信心和学习积极性,并进而影响师生的互动以及二语的习得。
通过数据分析和结果讨论作者提出了几点启示和对其它的相关研究一点建议。大体有如下三点启示：(1)教师尽量保护学生的情感。(2)针对不同课堂教师可采用不同纠错方法。(3)教师以学生为中心,尽量让学生参与更多课堂互动。(4)教师可采用多样反馈方式,特别是话语反馈以激发学生动机。如果在师生课堂互动过程中注重以上的几点原则,那么教师就可以得到更好的课堂师生互动效果,并且更好的为二语习得创造和谐,活跃的氛围,以便学生的语言交际能力的提高。
This study investigates teacher feedbacks and T-S interactions in common English classes of high schools. The study chose five classes of grade two as the objects of this research. Four teachers and five class-students are involved in it. The audio material is from the database of School of Foreign Languages in Northeast Normal University. This essay takes the stand of social interaction theory elaborating that all cognitive development, including language development, arises as a result of social interaction between individuals (Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada: 2002:44). The key construct of Vygosky's interactionist theories is Mediation. The role of the teacher is a mediator in the classroom through teacher's question, teacher's feedbacks towards students, to help learners to produce linguistic forms that lie outside their existing competence. The main questions addressed are: (1) what kinds of teacher feedback the high school English teacher constantly use? (2)What is the proportion of these types of teacher feedback? (3)How does the teacher feedback influence the interaction of the EFL?
The study highlights how the teacher feedback affects the classroom T-S interaction. Qualitative and quantitative methods are both used in the study. Through the analysis of the data from a social interactive theoretical perspective, three tables were formed and based on the generated data three questions were answered and the relevant findings are summerized as the following:
1) In all the five classes to the answers of the students most of the teachers provided feedbacks. Most teachers have noticed the importance of teacher feedback and have contributed an appropriate portion of teacher feedbacks in the classroom interaction.
2) From the data of the proportion of each types of teacher feedback in the classes, the author found the expansion or elaboration type of discoursal feedbacks unexpectly occupies the greatest portion of the teacher feedback moves. By contrast recast which was considered as the most preferable one in language study abroad took the least amount of the ratio. The explicit correction was least used next to recast by teachers in the class which suggests that as the previous research showed that it is less favored by teachers compared especially with the positive feedbacks for being less courageous to motivate students. The cases in which this kind of feedback usually happens are when the teacher tries to correct pronunciations or grammars. In the classes that the students for most of the time can handle these problems, so there are few explicit corrections in all these classes. With regard to positive feedbacks the author divided it into simple approval and approval with repetition. And the result shows that the latter one is more preferred by teachers. It suggests that in most of the teachers' mind that approval with repetition is not only an evaluation of the answer to the inquired students, but it also functions as an emphasis and a certain comprehensible input to the rest of the class.
3) From the analysis of the relation between the amount and types of teacher feedbacks in classes and the time of the T-S interaction, the author finds generally that the more the teacher chose the discoursal feedbacks, the more the T-S interactions are there in classes. And the more various types of teacher feedbacks the teachers applied the more T-S interactions it will create in classes.
4) The author illustrated the affect of different teacher feedbacks on T-S interaction through a qualitative method elaboration, and discussed the disadvantages and disadvantages of certain teacher feedbacks in the data. Based on all these analysis and findings several implications are proposed and suggestions for future studies. There are generally three policies drawn from the research: (1) the teacher protects the motivation of the students as much as possible. (2) the teacher can be selective in correcting the errors and mistakes of the students in different types of classes. (3) the teacher takes the students as the center of the classes and create more chances for students to participate in classes. (4) the teacher can apply various types of teacher feedbacks, especially the discoursal feedbacks to stimulate the motivation of students. With the guidance of these policies a teacher may get a better T-S interaction in an English class and create a harmonious and active atmosphere which will benefit the second language of the students.
引文
[1]Allwright, R. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning [J]. App-lied Linguistics,1984(4):23-25.
[2]Allwright, R. Classroom- centered research on language teaching and learning: A Brief Historical Overview [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1983.(17):12-13.
[3]Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.56-57.
[4]Brophy, J. Teacher praise:A functional analysis [J]. Review of Educational Research,1981.51.
[5]Brown, H.D. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy [M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001(6) 17-18.
[6]Brown, H.D. Principals of Language Leaning and Teaching [M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003(4):161-170.
[7]Day, R. (ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House,1986.78-79.
[8]Gaise, S. The investigation of language classroom process [J]. TESOL Q uarterly, 1983(17):36-38.
[9]Krashen, S. Principles and practice in second language acquisition[M]. Oxford: Pergamon,1982(9):56-57.
[10]Krashen, S. The Input Hypo thesis: Issue and Implication [M].London: Longman, 1985(14):78-79.
[11]Krashen, S. Second L anguage Acquisition and Second L anguage Learning [M]. Oxford: Pergamon,1981.143-144.
[12]Long, M. H. Native speaker & non - native speaker conversation in the second language classroom [C] Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 1984.55-56.
[13]Long, M. & Sato.C Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective [A]. In Davies, A, Criper, C & Howatt, A(edus.). Interlanguage [C] Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,1984.104.
[14]Long, M. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input Applied Linguistics,1983(4):126-141.
[15]Long, M. Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch eds). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Bejamins Publishing Co,1991:39-52.
[16]Lyster, R. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. [J]Language Learning,1998(48):183-21.
[17]Lyster, R. Form- focused instruction in immersion classrooms [J]. Journal of French Language Studies,2004 (14):22-24.
[18]Lyster, R. Differential effects of prompts and recasts [J].Studies in SLA,2004 (26):56-58.
[19]Mackey, A & Philp, J. Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings?[J] Modern Language Journal,1998(82):338-356.
[20]Nunan, D. Communicative language teaching: Making it work [J]. EL T Journal,1987. (4):55.
[21]Nunan, D. Language Teaching Methodology [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1991 (8):36-37.
[22]Philp, J. Constraints on "noticing the gap": Nonnative speakers'noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. [J]Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2003(25):99-126.
[23]Richards, J. C. The Contex t of L anguage Teaching [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1994(4):45-46.
[24]Swain, M. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review,1993.50.
[25]Swain M. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning [A]. G Cook.B. Seidlhofer. For H. G. Widdowson: Principle and Practice in the Study of Language [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1995(2):9-12.
[26]Swain, M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development [A]. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.). Input in Second L anguage Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.1985(9):27-29.
[27]VanLier, L. The Classroom and the Learner [M]. London: Longman.1988(5):11-15.
[28]Weivstein, C & Mayer, R. The teaching of learning strategies [M]. Wittrock, 1986(4)55-56.
[29]Widdowson, H. G. The learner in the language learning process [A]. In S.Holden (ed.). Focus on the Learner: Bologna Conf erence Organised by the British Council: 712. London: Modern English Publications,1983(6):25-27.
[30]Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. Psychology for Language Teachers. [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000 (7):64-65.
[31]柴奕,陈水池.反馈原理在外语课堂互动中的运用[J].教学与管理,2009：131-132.
[32]何安平.基于语料库的英语教师话语分析现代外语季刊[J].现代外语季刊,2007(8)：33-35.
[33]刘学惠.我国中学生英语学习焦虑的调查和分析[J].中小学英语教学与研究,1989(2)：41-43.
[34]孙燕青.第二语言学习中的反馈[J].心理科学进展,2005(2)：57-58.
[35]赵晓红.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析外语界[J].外语界,1998(2)：17-22.
[36]周军平.课堂互动在学习者语言发展中的作用[J].甘肃联合大学学报(社会科学版),2005(4)：83-86.
[37]周星,周韵.大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J].外语教学与研究,2002(1)：78-79.
[2]Allwright, R. Classroom- centered research on language teaching and learning: A Brief Historical Overview [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1983.(17):12-13.
[3]Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.56-57.
[4]Brophy, J. Teacher praise:A functional analysis [J]. Review of Educational Research,1981.51.
[5]Brown, H.D. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy [M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2001(6) 17-18.
[6]Brown, H.D. Principals of Language Leaning and Teaching [M].Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003(4):161-170.
[7]Day, R. (ed.). Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House,1986.78-79.
[8]Gaise, S. The investigation of language classroom process [J]. TESOL Q uarterly, 1983(17):36-38.
[9]Krashen, S. Principles and practice in second language acquisition[M]. Oxford: Pergamon,1982(9):56-57.
[10]Krashen, S. The Input Hypo thesis: Issue and Implication [M].London: Longman, 1985(14):78-79.
[11]Krashen, S. Second L anguage Acquisition and Second L anguage Learning [M]. Oxford: Pergamon,1981.143-144.
[12]Long, M. H. Native speaker & non - native speaker conversation in the second language classroom [C] Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 1984.55-56.
[13]Long, M. & Sato.C Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective [A]. In Davies, A, Criper, C & Howatt, A(edus.). Interlanguage [C] Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,1984.104.
[14]Long, M. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input Applied Linguistics,1983(4):126-141.
[15]Long, M. Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch eds). Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Bejamins Publishing Co,1991:39-52.
[16]Lyster, R. Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. [J]Language Learning,1998(48):183-21.
[17]Lyster, R. Form- focused instruction in immersion classrooms [J]. Journal of French Language Studies,2004 (14):22-24.
[18]Lyster, R. Differential effects of prompts and recasts [J].Studies in SLA,2004 (26):56-58.
[19]Mackey, A & Philp, J. Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses, and red herrings?[J] Modern Language Journal,1998(82):338-356.
[20]Nunan, D. Communicative language teaching: Making it work [J]. EL T Journal,1987. (4):55.
[21]Nunan, D. Language Teaching Methodology [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1991 (8):36-37.
[22]Philp, J. Constraints on "noticing the gap": Nonnative speakers'noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. [J]Studies in Second Language Acquisition,2003(25):99-126.
[23]Richards, J. C. The Contex t of L anguage Teaching [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1994(4):45-46.
[24]Swain, M. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review,1993.50.
[25]Swain M. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning [A]. G Cook.B. Seidlhofer. For H. G. Widdowson: Principle and Practice in the Study of Language [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1995(2):9-12.
[26]Swain, M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development [A]. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.). Input in Second L anguage Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.1985(9):27-29.
[27]VanLier, L. The Classroom and the Learner [M]. London: Longman.1988(5):11-15.
[28]Weivstein, C & Mayer, R. The teaching of learning strategies [M]. Wittrock, 1986(4)55-56.
[29]Widdowson, H. G. The learner in the language learning process [A]. In S.Holden (ed.). Focus on the Learner: Bologna Conf erence Organised by the British Council: 712. London: Modern English Publications,1983(6):25-27.
[30]Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. Psychology for Language Teachers. [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000 (7):64-65.
[31]柴奕,陈水池.反馈原理在外语课堂互动中的运用[J].教学与管理,2009：131-132.
[32]何安平.基于语料库的英语教师话语分析现代外语季刊[J].现代外语季刊,2007(8)：33-35.
[33]刘学惠.我国中学生英语学习焦虑的调查和分析[J].中小学英语教学与研究,1989(2)：41-43.
[34]孙燕青.第二语言学习中的反馈[J].心理科学进展,2005(2)：57-58.
[35]赵晓红.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析外语界[J].外语界,1998(2)：17-22.
[36]周军平.课堂互动在学习者语言发展中的作用[J].甘肃联合大学学报(社会科学版),2005(4)：83-86.
[37]周星,周韵.大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J].外语教学与研究,2002(1)：78-79.