本文選題：英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)　切入點(diǎn)：英語(yǔ)課堂　出處：《內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：錯(cuò)誤的出現(xiàn)是二語(yǔ)習(xí)得過(guò)程中的必然產(chǎn)物。自上世紀(jì)50年代開(kāi)始,糾錯(cuò)反饋在二語(yǔ)習(xí)得過(guò)程中的角色一直是一個(gè)備受爭(zhēng)議的話(huà)題。近年來(lái),越來(lái)越多的語(yǔ)言學(xué)家開(kāi)始意識(shí)到在二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)程中糾錯(cuò)的重要性,逐漸開(kāi)展了一系列關(guān)于英語(yǔ)課堂口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)的研究。蘭斯特、郎、喬壯、蘭特等人的研究為后來(lái)的研究者針對(duì)二語(yǔ)習(xí)得課堂中的口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)的研究提供了一些有效的策略和研究模式。喬壯就糾錯(cuò)提出了五個(gè)問(wèn)題:糾不糾,糾什么,何時(shí)糾,怎么糾,誰(shuí)來(lái)糾。本文以此作為研究基礎(chǔ),調(diào)查英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)學(xué)生與教師對(duì)于口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)的態(tài)度并探尋二者態(tài)度之間的不同點(diǎn),為日后英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)的課堂教學(xué)提出一些建議,從而能夠更好幫助教師教學(xué)。本文研究過(guò)程中使用的研究工具有調(diào)查問(wèn)卷與采訪(fǎng)。調(diào)查工具中使用的兩份調(diào)查問(wèn)卷均采自吉小偉(2010)研究中所使用的調(diào)查問(wèn)卷,包括教師調(diào)查問(wèn)卷與學(xué)生調(diào)查問(wèn)卷。問(wèn)卷調(diào)查在內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)與包頭師范學(xué)院展開(kāi),涉及了150名學(xué)生與35位教師。作者以隨機(jī)抽選的方式對(duì)其中10名學(xué)生與5名教師在問(wèn)卷調(diào)查之后進(jìn)行了訪(fǎng)談。本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)學(xué)生與教師對(duì)于口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)的態(tài)度出于不同的原因存在顯著的差異。(1)在是否糾錯(cuò)這一問(wèn)題,學(xué)生與教師對(duì)于是否糾錯(cuò)這一問(wèn)題都持肯定態(tài)度。但大部分學(xué)生希望其口語(yǔ)中的錯(cuò)誤都能得到教師的糾正,然而教師則認(rèn)為應(yīng)該有針對(duì)性的糾正;(2)在糾什么這一問(wèn)題上,教師認(rèn)為最值得注意且糾正的是語(yǔ)用錯(cuò)誤,學(xué)生則認(rèn)為是語(yǔ)法錯(cuò)誤和語(yǔ)用錯(cuò)誤;(3)針對(duì)何時(shí)糾錯(cuò)這一方面,絕大多數(shù)教師認(rèn)為應(yīng)該在學(xué)生發(fā)言之后再進(jìn)行糾正,部分學(xué)生同意發(fā)言后糾,部分學(xué)生認(rèn)為應(yīng)該立即糾正;(4)在糾錯(cuò)的具體方式上,教師較為喜歡元語(yǔ)言線(xiàn)索反饋,而學(xué)生則傾向于明確糾錯(cuò);(5)絕大多數(shù)的學(xué)生認(rèn)為教師應(yīng)當(dāng)是糾錯(cuò)的主要實(shí)施者,教師認(rèn)為在遇到不同錯(cuò)誤時(shí),糾錯(cuò)對(duì)象也應(yīng)該不同。根據(jù)這一結(jié)果,作者在本文結(jié)尾部分提出了教學(xué)建議:當(dāng)教師確定要進(jìn)行糾錯(cuò)時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合學(xué)生的語(yǔ)言水平、學(xué)生的性格特點(diǎn)以及學(xué)生對(duì)于糾錯(cuò)的喜好進(jìn)行考慮。與此同時(shí),教師應(yīng)該在糾錯(cuò)時(shí),以友好、尊重及肯定的態(tài)度對(duì)待學(xué)生。
[Abstract]:The emergence of errors is an inevitable product of second language acquisition. Since the 1950s, the role of error correction feedback in second language acquisition has been a controversial topic. More and more linguists have begun to realize the importance of error-correction in the process of second language learning, and have gradually carried out a series of studies on the correction of oral English. Rand's research has provided some effective strategies and research models for later researchers to study oral error correction in the second language acquisition classroom. Joe Zhuang has put forward five questions on error correction: correct wrong, correct what, when and how to correct. On the basis of this research, this paper investigates the attitudes of English majors and teachers towards oral correction and explores the differences between them, and puts forward some suggestions for classroom teaching of English majors in the future. The research tools used in this study include questionnaires and interviews. The two questionnaires used in the research are collected from the questionnaire used by Ji Xiaowei (2010). The questionnaire was conducted in Inner Mongolia normal University and Baotou normal College. 150 students and 35 teachers were involved. 10 students and 5 teachers were interviewed by random sampling. The present study found that English majors and teachers had a correct attitude towards oral English. There are significant differences between degrees for different reasons. Both students and teachers have a positive attitude on whether to correct mistakes. However, most students hope that the mistakes in their spoken language can be corrected by the teachers. However, the teachers think that there should be targeted corrections. Teachers think that pragmatic errors are the most noteworthy and correct ones, while students think that they are grammatical errors and pragmatic errors. Most teachers think that correction should be done after the students have spoken. Some students agree to correct the speech after speaking, while some students think that it should be rectified immediately) in the specific ways of correcting errors, teachers prefer metalanguage feedback. However, students tend to make it clear that the majority of students think that the teacher should be the main implementer of error correction, and the teacher thinks that the object of error correction should be different when meeting with different error. According to this result, At the end of this paper, the author puts forward some teaching suggestions: when teachers decide to correct errors, they should take into account students' language proficiency, students' personality characteristics and students' preference for error correction. Teachers should treat students with friendliness, respect and affirmation when correcting mistakes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：H319.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 胡堅(jiān);“錯(cuò)誤”研究的理論與方法及錯(cuò)誤糾正策略[J];山東外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2004年05期

2 向朝紅;“監(jiān)察”學(xué)習(xí)理論及其對(duì)口語(yǔ)錯(cuò)誤糾正的啟示[J];外語(yǔ)與外語(yǔ)教學(xué);1999年07期

3 邱兆杰;EFL教學(xué)中的糾錯(cuò)問(wèn)題——學(xué)習(xí)者的看法和要求[J];外語(yǔ)界;1997年02期

4 朱明慧;英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)課中的糾錯(cuò)策略[J];外語(yǔ)界;1996年03期

5 戴煒棟，束定芳;試論影響外語(yǔ)習(xí)得的若干重要因素──外語(yǔ)教學(xué)理論系列文章之一[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));1994年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 胡越竹;外語(yǔ)課堂語(yǔ)言錯(cuò)誤的糾正[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 白會(huì)凌;錯(cuò)誤分析理論在英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)教學(xué)中的應(yīng)用[D];貴州師范大學(xué);2006年

2 田永芳;錯(cuò)誤分析及其對(duì)我國(guó)外語(yǔ)教學(xué)的影響[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

3 葛學(xué)奎;學(xué)生視角下中國(guó)大學(xué)英語(yǔ)課堂糾錯(cuò)行為再研究[D];東南大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1662654