本文選題：題型設(shè)置 + 寫作練習(xí)�。� 參考：《北京大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文嘗試以中高級水平漢語學(xué)習(xí)者為例，研究題型設(shè)置對寫作練習(xí)使用效果的影響：一、寫作練習(xí)題型設(shè)置不同，學(xué)習(xí)者寫出來的作文質(zhì)量會(huì)不同嗎？如果會(huì)，有什么不同？二、寫作練習(xí)題型設(shè)置不同，對學(xué)習(xí)者語言學(xué)習(xí)的促進(jìn)作用會(huì)不同嗎？ 將有沒有題目、內(nèi)容要求和語言要求這三種因素進(jìn)行組合，會(huì)產(chǎn)生五種不同的寫作練習(xí)題型。每種題型我們各收集了一次作文。被試是北京大學(xué)對外漢語教育學(xué)院2012年度秋季學(xué)期的一個(gè)中級漢語班，共15名學(xué)生。請兩位評分員根據(jù)給定的評分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對收集的作文進(jìn)行評分，同時(shí)還進(jìn)行文本分析，統(tǒng)計(jì)準(zhǔn)確度、語法復(fù)雜度、詞匯復(fù)雜度、連貫度和銜接度，從兩個(gè)角度對五種題型的作文質(zhì)量進(jìn)行了分析比較。 比較不同題型設(shè)置對語言學(xué)習(xí)促進(jìn)作用的大小時(shí)，我們用輸出假說分析作文質(zhì)量的差異，另外還對學(xué)習(xí)者和教師發(fā)放調(diào)查問卷，探究兩者的看法是否有分歧。北京大學(xué)對外漢語教育學(xué)院2013年度春季學(xué)期的一個(gè)高級漢語班在做過這五種作文題型后，填寫了18份調(diào)查問卷。教師問卷的調(diào)查對象是北京大學(xué)對外漢語教育學(xué)院的23位教師，他們教授過中級漢語、高級漢語或者寫作課。 從評分和文本分析的結(jié)果來看，題型中設(shè)不設(shè)置語言要求、題目、內(nèi)容要求，會(huì)影響學(xué)生作文的質(zhì)量：只有題目時(shí)，，學(xué)生寫出來的作文詞語類型多樣性最低；在有題目的基礎(chǔ)上增加內(nèi)容要求，會(huì)降低作文的詞語高級性；只有語言要求時(shí)，學(xué)生寫出來的作文準(zhǔn)確度和連貫度最低；在有題目、內(nèi)容要求的基礎(chǔ)上增加語言要求，會(huì)增加學(xué)生寫作時(shí)的詞匯復(fù)雜度（包括詞語類型多樣性和詞語高級性），降低銜接度（指指稱關(guān)系的使用）；與有題目、內(nèi)容要求的題型相比，只有有語言要求的題型詞匯復(fù)雜度（包括詞語類型多樣性和詞語高級性）更高。 調(diào)查問卷與運(yùn)用輸出假說解析作文質(zhì)量的研究結(jié)果相一致：與設(shè)置題目、內(nèi)容要求相比，寫作練習(xí)設(shè)置語言要求，能更好地幫助學(xué)習(xí)者學(xué)習(xí)語言。 通過對上述研究結(jié)果的進(jìn)一步討論，我們對教學(xué)中如何選擇寫作練習(xí)題型提出了建議，其中特別針對題型C（有題目、語言要求、內(nèi)容要求）的使用爭議進(jìn)行了嘗試性的解決。在上述建議的基礎(chǔ)上，我們還討論了應(yīng)該如何編寫教材中的寫作練習(xí)。
[Abstract]:This article tries to take the middle and senior level Chinese learners as an example to study the effect of the type setting on the effect of the writing practice. First, is the composition of the writing exercises different and the quality of the composition written by the learners different? If it will, what are the differences? Two, the different types of writing exercises are set up, and the promotion of the learners' language learning will be different. ?
There will be five different types of writing exercises that will be combined with the three factors, such as the title, the content requirement and the language requirement. Each type of composition is collected. The subjects are a middle Chinese class in the autumn semester of the College of foreign language education of Peking University, a middle Chinese class in the autumn term of the year 2012, and a total of 15 students. Two raters are asked to be given a given basis. The scoring standard is used to score the collected compositions. At the same time, the text analysis, the statistical accuracy, the grammatical complexity, the complexity of vocabulary, the degree of coherence and the degree of cohesion are carried out, and the quality of the composition of the five types of compositions is analyzed and compared from two angles.
We compared the difference in the quality of the composition with the output hypothesis, and the questionnaire of the learners and teachers to find out whether there is a difference between the differences in the difference in the quality of the composition with the output hypothesis. In addition, a senior Chinese class in the 2013 spring season of the College of foreign Chinese education of Peking University has done these five kinds. After the composition, 18 questionnaires were filled in. The subjects of the teacher's questionnaire were 23 teachers from the College of foreign Chinese education at Peking University. They taught intermediate Chinese, advanced Chinese or writing class.
From the results of the score and text analysis, there are no language requirements, questions, and content requirements, which will affect the quality of the students' composition: only when the topic is written by the students, the diversity of the words and expressions is the lowest; the addition of content on the basis of a subject will reduce the level of the composition of the composition; only when the language is required, Students write the lowest degree of accuracy and consistency; adding language requirements on the basis of subject matter and content requirements will increase the vocabulary complexity (including the diversity of words and words) and reduce the degree of cohesion (referring to the use of the referential relationship). The word complexity (including word type diversity and word superiority) is higher.
The questionnaire is in accordance with the results of the analysis of the quality of the composition by using the output hypothesis: compared with the setting of the title and the content requirements, the writing practice sets the language requirements, which can help the learners to learn the language better.
Through further discussion of the above research results, we put forward some suggestions on how to choose writing exercises in teaching, especially for the use of C (topic, language requirement, content requirement). On the basis of the above suggestions, we also discuss how to write the writing in the textbook. Practice.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H195

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 陳福寶;對外漢語語段寫作訓(xùn)練簡論[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1998年06期

2 吳平;從學(xué)習(xí)策略到對外漢語寫作教學(xué)[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1999年03期

3 辛平;對11篇留學(xué)生漢語作文中偏誤的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析及對漢語寫作課教學(xué)的思考[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);2001年04期

4 張永昱;漢語句群的組合形式與成段表達(dá)能力的培訓(xùn)[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);2003年02期

5 劉頌浩,汪燕;“把”字句練習(xí)設(shè)計(jì)中的語境問題[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);2003年04期

6 劉元滿;;留學(xué)生一般性文章格式偏誤表現(xiàn)與分析——基于100份入學(xué)分班試卷的作文調(diào)查[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);2007年05期

7 南勇;留學(xué)生的漢語寫作教學(xué)芻議[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1994年06期

8 蔣以亮;課堂交際技能訓(xùn)練的一種方法──談“分組”[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1998年01期

9 劉頌浩;注釋式詞語練習(xí)試析[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);1999年04期

10 王光全;;“對話—轉(zhuǎn)述”方法在漢語教學(xué)中的應(yīng)用[J];華文教學(xué)與研究;2012年01期

中國碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前1條

1 孔倩倩;“摘要填空”題在中級漢語綜合課練習(xí)中的運(yùn)用[D];北京語言大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1775647