本文選題：高中英語(yǔ)課堂 + 糾錯(cuò)反饋　； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：作為英語(yǔ)課堂教學(xué)的一個(gè)重要環(huán)節(jié),糾錯(cuò)反饋?zhàn)陨鲜兰o(jì)八十年代以來就頗受關(guān)注。由于語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)特別是外語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)大多在課堂中進(jìn)行,所以教師和學(xué)生對(duì)待口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)的態(tài)度和偏好應(yīng)引起足夠的重視。許多學(xué)者通過調(diào)查研究或訪談等方法,探究了教師和學(xué)生對(duì)不同糾錯(cuò)方式的偏好,以及教師在課堂中使用糾錯(cuò)反饋的實(shí)際情況。然而,有關(guān)高中英語(yǔ)課堂口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)方面的實(shí)證研究相對(duì)較少,對(duì)學(xué)生偏好與教師糾錯(cuò)反饋效果之間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行的研究則更少。鑒于此,本文通過問卷調(diào)查,比較了學(xué)生與教師對(duì)不同類型糾錯(cuò)反饋的偏好;在問卷調(diào)查的基礎(chǔ)上,通過行動(dòng)研究,探討了學(xué)生偏好對(duì)教師糾錯(cuò)反饋效果的影響,并分析其原因。本研究提出了如下問題:1)學(xué)生與教師偏好的糾錯(cuò)方式是否存在差異?如果是,有何種差異? 2)在實(shí)際教學(xué)中,教師采用的糾錯(cuò)方式與問卷調(diào)查結(jié)果是否一致?如果不一致,差異體現(xiàn)在哪些地方? 3)學(xué)生偏好的糾錯(cuò)方式是否引發(fā)較高的錯(cuò)誤修正率?如果是,原因是什么?問卷調(diào)查的對(duì)象為170名高一學(xué)生和22名高中英語(yǔ)教師。170名學(xué)生全部來自南京市某四星級(jí)高中,而22名教師則任教于南京、陜西、重慶等不同地區(qū)。行動(dòng)研究對(duì)南京市某四星級(jí)高中的一個(gè)班進(jìn)行了課堂錄音、前測(cè)和后測(cè)。前測(cè)不對(duì)課堂進(jìn)行任何干預(yù),老師按照自己的上課模式進(jìn)行。后測(cè)則根據(jù)前期調(diào)查問卷的結(jié)果,要求老師在課堂上多使用學(xué)生偏好的糾錯(cuò)方式(元語(yǔ)言糾錯(cuò)、重述和提示誘導(dǎo))糾正學(xué)生的錯(cuò)誤。行動(dòng)研究共獲得29節(jié)課的錄音,其中22節(jié)課共計(jì)18. 5小時(shí)的錄音被轉(zhuǎn)寫成書面文本。通過對(duì)問卷調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù),前、后測(cè)課堂中錯(cuò)誤和糾錯(cuò)反饋的分布情況,以及每種糾錯(cuò)性反饋引發(fā)修正的情況進(jìn)行定量和定性分析,本研究得出如下結(jié)論:1)學(xué)生對(duì)糾錯(cuò)反饋的偏好是:元語(yǔ)言糾錯(cuò)重述提示誘導(dǎo)重復(fù)請(qǐng)求澄清直接糾錯(cuò)。教師對(duì)糾錯(cuò)反饋的偏好是:重述提示誘導(dǎo)=重復(fù)元語(yǔ)言糾錯(cuò)請(qǐng)求澄清直接糾錯(cuò)。2)教師在實(shí)際教學(xué)中的糾錯(cuò)方式的頻率順序是:重復(fù)提示誘導(dǎo)=直接糾錯(cuò)元語(yǔ)言提示重述=請(qǐng)求澄清。3)教師采用學(xué)生偏好的糾錯(cuò)方式(如元語(yǔ)言糾錯(cuò)和重述)能夠引發(fā)更多的修正。但是多因素相關(guān)性分析表明:學(xué)生偏好與糾錯(cuò)反饋所引發(fā)的修正之間并不存在顯著相關(guān)性。綜上,本文提出如下教學(xué)建議:教師應(yīng)加強(qiáng)理論知識(shí)儲(chǔ)備,將糾錯(cuò)反饋理論與教學(xué)實(shí)踐相結(jié)合,既能修正學(xué)生的錯(cuò)誤,提高學(xué)生的語(yǔ)言能力,又可以促進(jìn)自身學(xué)術(shù)能力的提高。在課堂糾錯(cuò)過程中,教師可運(yùn)用不同糾錯(cuò)方式,而非某一種方式糾正學(xué)生錯(cuò)誤。
[Abstract]:As an important part of English classroom teaching, error-correction feedback has attracted much attention since 1980's.Since language learning, especially foreign language learning, mostly takes place in the classroom, teachers and students should pay enough attention to their attitudes and preferences towards oral error correction.Many scholars have explored the preference of teachers and students for different ways of correcting errors and the actual situation of teachers using error-correcting feedback in the classroom by means of investigation or interview.However, there are relatively few empirical studies on oral error correction in senior high school English classes, and less on the relationship between students' preferences and teachers' error correction feedback effects.In view of this, this paper compares students' and teachers' preferences for different types of error correction feedback through questionnaires, and discusses the effects of students' preferences on teachers' error correction feedback based on the questionnaire survey and action research.The reasons are analyzed.This study raises the following question: (1) is there a difference in error-correcting approaches between students and teachers?If so, what is the difference? 2) in actual teaching, is the error correction method adopted by teachers consistent with the results of the questionnaire survey?If not, where does the difference lie? 3) does the error correction method of students' preference lead to a higher error correction rate?If so, why?The subjects of the questionnaire were 170 senior high school students and 22 high school English teachers. All of them came from a four-star high school in Nanjing, while 22 teachers taught in Nanjing, Shaanxi, Chongqing and other regions.The action study recorded, pre-and post-tested a class in a four-star high school in Nanjing.No intervention in the class before the test, the teacher according to their own class mode.According to the results of the previous questionnaire, the post-test asked the teacher to use the error-correcting methods (metalanguage correction, restatement and hint induction) to correct the students' errors in the classroom.Action Research received a total of 29 audio recordings, of which 22 classes totalled 18.The 5-hour recording was transcribed into a written copy.Based on the questionnaire data, the distribution of error and error correction feedback in the pre-and post-test classroom, and the correction caused by each error correction feedback, the quantitative and qualitative analysis was carried out.This study concludes as follows: 1) students' preference for error correction feedback is: meta-language error correction restatement hint induces repeated requests for clarification direct error correction.The teacher's preference for error-correction feedback is: restatement cue inducement = repeat meta language correction request clarification direct error correction .2) the order of the teacher's error correction mode in actual teaching is: repetition cue inducement = direct error correction metalanguage proposalIt is shown that restatement = request for clarification. 3) the teacher adopts the error-correction method of students' preference (such as metalanguage correction and restatement) can cause more corrections.But the multivariate correlation analysis shows that there is no significant correlation between student preference and the correction caused by error correction feedback.In summary, this paper puts forward the following teaching suggestions: teachers should strengthen the theoretical knowledge reserve and combine the error-correcting feedback theory with the teaching practice, which can not only correct students' mistakes, improve students' language ability, but also promote their own academic ability.In the process of correcting errors in class, teachers can correct students' errors in different ways, not in one way.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：G633.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱彥;;透過“反饋”之鏡,傾聽課堂之音——大學(xué)英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)口頭糾錯(cuò)反饋的信念探究[J];外語(yǔ)與外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2016年01期

2 謝小紅;;英語(yǔ)課堂糾錯(cuò)態(tài)度與成績(jī)水平的相關(guān)性研究[J];嘉應(yīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年03期

3 王學(xué)艷;;糾錯(cuò)策略在英語(yǔ)課堂教學(xué)中的應(yīng)用[J];教學(xué)與管理;2012年24期

4 李敏;;對(duì)高中生英語(yǔ)課堂交際糾錯(cuò)的調(diào)查研究[J];文學(xué)界(理論版);2012年05期

5 莊欣;;課堂英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)反饋機(jī)制研究[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2012年02期

6 劉雄姿;;外語(yǔ)課堂教學(xué)中糾錯(cuò)性反饋研究綜述[J];蘭州教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

7 張運(yùn)霞;;英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)課課堂糾錯(cuò)調(diào)查研究[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年10期

8 趙桂忠;;中小學(xué)英語(yǔ)課堂糾錯(cuò)行為研究[J];中學(xué)教學(xué)參考;2010年22期

9 金銀星;姜楠;;EFL口語(yǔ)課堂中的糾錯(cuò)[J];海南廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

10 謝春坤;;中學(xué)英語(yǔ)課堂教學(xué)中的糾錯(cuò)策略[J];教學(xué)與管理;2009年16期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 馮素燕;高中英語(yǔ)課堂上教師與學(xué)生的錯(cuò)誤觀及糾錯(cuò)方式的研究[D];河北師范大學(xué);2012年

2 王文方;高中英語(yǔ)課堂口語(yǔ)糾錯(cuò)：學(xué)生偏愛與教師行為的對(duì)比研究[D];揚(yáng)州大學(xué);2012年

3 毛云萍;糾錯(cuò)在英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法學(xué)習(xí)中的現(xiàn)狀調(diào)查及效果研究[D];華東師范大學(xué);2010年

4 施光;糾錯(cuò)與接納：中學(xué)英語(yǔ)課堂研究[D];南京師范大學(xué);2004年

5 金培娜;自我與錯(cuò)誤的沖突[D];華東師范大學(xué);2004年

6 周文慧;情感過濾對(duì)二語(yǔ)習(xí)得輸出過程的作用[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2004年

7 唐潔儀;英語(yǔ)課堂上的教師糾錯(cuò)行為對(duì)學(xué)生語(yǔ)言習(xí)得（uptake）的影響[D];華南師范大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號(hào)：1767850