高中英语教师课堂口头纠错个案研究

发布时间：2018-03-11 11:36

本文选题：口头纠错性反馈　切入点：高中英语教师　出处：《四川师范大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：本研究以Lyster与Ranta纠错性反馈和错误的分类框架为基础,以成都市盐道街中学高一11班英语教师及全体55名同学为研究对象,采用了课堂观察法、问卷调查法和访谈法三种测量工具收集数据,并对数据进行定量和定性分析,试图回答下列三个问题:1)英语课堂上,教师倾向于使用哪种口头性纠错反馈;2)不同性别的学生对教师口头性纠错反馈的态度及期待;3)不同英语水平的学生对教师口头性纠错反馈的态度及期待。通过数据分析,作者发现:第一,从总体来看,高一11班英语教师主要使用重铸法和直接纠错法纠错。第二,在纠错过程中,女生体现出比男生更高焦虑。不同性别的学生对教师纠错方式的期待具有相同与不同之处:相同之处主要体现在语音错误方面:大部分男生和女生都期待教师采用直接纠错法。不同之处体现在词汇和语法错误:对于词汇错误,除男女都对重铸法和直接纠错法的要求较高之外,男生还期待教师能采用要求澄清法,而女生期待教师采用诱导法;对于语法错误,女生更期待教师使用重铸法和元语言纠错法,男生更期待教师使用重铸法和诱导法。第三,英语水平低的学生对教师纠错的焦虑程度高于水平中等及优等学生。不同英语水平的学生对教师纠错方式的期待既有相同也有不同之处:相同之处主要体现在语音错误:几乎所有学生都期待教师采用直接纠错法。不同之处体现在词汇和语法错误:对于词汇错误,英语水平高的学生期待教师采用直接纠错法和诱导法;英语水平中等和水平低的学生期待教师采用重铸法和直接纠错法;对于语法错误,尽管不同水平的学生都期待教师更多采用重铸法,但仍有少数英语水平高的学生期待教师采用直接纠错法;少数英语水平中等的学生期待教师采用元语言纠错法;少数英语水平低的学生期待教师采用诱导法。基于研究结果,作者建议高中英语教师要根据学生的差异(诸如性别、成绩差异)来进行纠错;关注学生对教师纠错反馈的需求,在纠错的同时结合适当的表扬,增强学生的自信心,提高学习效率。
[Abstract]:Based on the error-correcting feedback and error classification framework of Lyster and Ranta, the present study takes English teachers and 55 students in Grade 11 of Yandaojie Middle School in Chengdu as subjects, and adopts classroom observation method. Questionnaires and interviews are used to collect data and analyze them quantitatively and qualitatively in order to answer the following three questions: 1) in English classroom. Teachers tend to use oral error-correction feedback (2) attitudes and expectations of students of different genders towards oral error-correction feedback of teachers. 3) attitudes and expectations of students with different English proficiency towards oral error-correction feedback of teachers. The author finds that: first, in general, English teachers in Class 11 of Senior one mainly use recasting method and direct error correction method to correct errors. Second, in the process of error correction, Girls are more anxious than boys. Students of different genders have the same and different expectations about the way teachers correct errors: the similarities are mainly reflected in phonological errors: most boys and girls expect teachers to adopt. Use direct error correction. The difference lies in lexical and grammatical errors: in the case of lexical errors, In addition to the higher demands of both men and women on recasting and direct error correction, boys also expect teachers to adopt the requirement clarification method, while girls expect teachers to adopt inductive methods; for grammatical errors, Girls expect teachers to use recasting and metalanguage correction, while boys expect teachers to use recasting and induction. Third, Students with low English proficiency have higher anxiety about teachers' error correction than middle and excellent students. Students with different English levels have the same and different expectations of teachers' error correction methods: the similarities are mainly reflected in language. Phonetic errors: almost all students expect teachers to adopt direct error-correcting methods. The difference lies in lexical and grammatical errors: for lexical errors, Students with high English proficiency expect teachers to adopt direct error correction and induction methods; students with medium and low English proficiency expect teachers to adopt recasting and direct error correction; for grammatical errors, Although students at different levels expect teachers to adopt more recasting methods, a few students with high English proficiency expect teachers to adopt direct error-correction methods, while a few students with medium English proficiency expect teachers to adopt meta error-correcting methods. A few students with low English proficiency expect teachers to adopt inductive methods. Based on the results of the study, the author suggests that high school English teachers should correct errors according to students' differences (such as gender, achievement differences), and pay attention to students' demand for feedback on teachers' error correction. In error correction combined with appropriate praise, enhance students confidence, improve learning efficiency.
【学位授予单位】：四川师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：G633.41

【参考文献】