大学英语交际课堂中教师口语纠错反馈与其有效性研究

摘要

上世纪八十年代以来,关于教师对学习者语言错误纠错反馈的研究,一直呈增长趋势。近年来,尤其在第二语言教学和认知科学中,语言纠错反馈已成为了一个热点论题。然而,由于实证研究的匮乏,至今关于纠错反馈的有效性和应用性还存在诸多争论。但这也为语言的进一步深入研究,提供了更广的空间。本论文是一个探索性的实证研究,主要目的是探究在以交际教学法为主的课堂上,教师的口语纠错反馈对不同水平外语学习者的英语能力,尤其是语言准确性的提高是否有效,以及效果间的差异。为探究纠错反馈效果,笔者以口语错误类型(typesof error),与教师反馈类型(types of CF),反馈类型和学习者之间的领会(types ofuptake)之间的关系为研究基础,并从宏观和微观角度,采用对比分析的方法,来探究是否口语纠错反馈对学习者的整体语言水平有帮助,并进一步探究各语言项(linguistic item)是否能取得相同的进步。
　　 本研究有四大发现:首先,对于各类语言错误,重述(recast)和提示(ptompt)在教师的口语纠错反馈中分别居于第一和第二位。教师的纠错方式一致、持续,但缺乏多样性。其中,重述大多用来反馈难度等级稍高的语言错误类型,而提示却用来反馈难度等级稍低的语言错误类型。第二,突显性(saliency)对于反馈效果大小的取得是个关键因素。该实验表明:显性纠错策略(explicit strategies)比隐性纠错策略(implicit strategies)更能促使学习者领会(uptake)。同时,学习者对反馈的领会是一个涉及多因素的复杂项,例如教师甚至包括学习者对某种纠错反馈的喜好,教师进行纠错反馈的方式,各纠错反馈类型自身的性质等等。第三,整体而言,至少在短期内,纠错反馈不能对学生的口语语言能力,尤其是语言准确性的提高有明显的效果。但是,试验中已呈现出良好的发展趋势。同时,就取得的进步速度来看,学习者的语言水平不是影响纠错效果的关键因素,而与教师反馈方式以及反馈率的高低有很大关系。第四,对于不同的语言项,纠错反馈效果也存有差别。从错误类别来看,语法错误的纠错效果较为明显,而词汇和语音错误率保持不变甚至升高。所以,口语纠错反馈对于较为复杂的语言错误类型的效果不如复杂程度低的错误类型。
　　 从该论文中获得的发现对于语言教学具有一定的实践意义。首先,形式教学应该融入到外语交际课堂,使学习者的注意力能临时地转移到语言形式上,从而达到语言形式和意义表达间的平衡。同时,语言教师应该科学地、策略性地选取适合不同学习者以及不同错误的口语纠错反馈方式,以获得最佳的纠错效果。

目录

文摘

英文文摘

论文说明:List of Abbreviations、List of Tables、List of Figures

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Orientation of the Present Research

1.2 Rationale for the Present Research

1.3 Organization of the Thesis

Chapter 2 Terminology and Literature Review

2.1 Definitions of the Core Terms

2.1.1 Error

2.1.2 Corrective Feedback

2.1.3 Uptake

2.2 Rationale for CF in SLA

2.2.1 Error Analysis Theory and Interlanguage Hypothesis

2.2.2 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis and Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

2.2.3 Noticing Hypothesis and Involvement Load Hypothesis

2.2.4 Interaction Hypothesis

2.2.5 Focus on Form

2.3 Literature Review Pertaining to CF

2.3.1 Literature Abroad

2.3.2 Domestic Studies Involving CF

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Investigative Approach

3.2 Subjects

3.3 Procedure

3.4 Data Coding

3.4.1 The Analytic Model

3.4.2 The Coding of Types of Errors

3.4.3 The Coding of Various Types of CF

3.4.4 The Coding of Students'Uptake

3.4.5 Means to Analyze the Collected Data

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

4.1 An Overview of the Data of Pre-oral Test andPost-oral Test

4.2 An Overview of Students'and Teachers'Turns for the Experimental Classes

4.3 Distribution of Error Types and CF Moves

4.4 The Analysis of the Distribution of Errors Receiving Feedback

4.5 Distribution of Repair across CF Moves

4.6 Distribution of Uptak,No Uptake and NOOP Uptake

Chapter 5 Discussion

5.1 Question 1 What's the relationship between error types and types of CF?

5.1.1 The panorama of the relationship between error Types and CF

5.1.2 The relationship between CF and different types of error

5.2 Question 2 What is the relationship between CF and uptake?

5.2.1 The relationship between types of CF and types of uptake

5.2.2 The underlying reasons for types of uptake in relation to types of CF

5.3 Question 3 Can CF promote learners'accuracy as a whole?

5.4 Question 4 Can all linguistic items be improved at the same speed under the influence of CF?

Chapter 6 Conclusions

6.1 Summary of Major Findings

6.2 Pedagogical and Methodological Implications

6.3 Limitations

References

Appendix 1 Percentages of the Types of Error for the Pre-test and Post-test for English Majors

Appendix 2 Percentages of the Types of Error for the Pre-test and Post-test for Non-English Majors