本文選題：對(duì)外漢語口語課堂 + 糾錯(cuò)反饋　； 參考：《北京第二外國語學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：糾錯(cuò)反饋對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)者的二語習(xí)得效果有重大影響,同時(shí)也是教師在教學(xué)中必然面對(duì)的問題。20世紀(jì)70年代國外二語教學(xué)界研究開始起步,經(jīng)過幾十年的研究,成果較為豐富。20世紀(jì)末我國外語教學(xué)界也有了不少關(guān)于教師糾錯(cuò)反饋的研究。近些年,隨著對(duì)外漢語事業(yè)的蓬勃發(fā)展,漢語作為第二語言習(xí)得研究有了一定的成果。但相比之下,研究成果仍不夠豐富,缺少基于課堂的實(shí)證性研究。本文通過對(duì)北京第二外國語學(xué)院對(duì)外漢語口語課堂的實(shí)錄轉(zhuǎn)寫,對(duì)不同水平課堂中出現(xiàn)的糾錯(cuò)反饋進(jìn)行了語料整理和分析研究,并對(duì)學(xué)生的理解回應(yīng)情況進(jìn)行考察�？偨Y(jié)了對(duì)外漢語課堂中教師糾錯(cuò)反饋的分布特點(diǎn),發(fā)現(xiàn)問題所在并提出了相應(yīng)的教學(xué)建議。研究結(jié)果表明,初中級(jí)對(duì)外漢語口語課堂中,教師的糾錯(cuò)反饋和學(xué)生的理解回應(yīng)情況均存在一定的共性和差異性。統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果表明,在糾錯(cuò)方式的選擇上,初中級(jí)口語課堂中教師均傾向“重述”這種方式,“明確糾正”的使用頻次也很高。針對(duì)語音、詞匯、語法、語用四種不同類型的偏誤,不同水平口語課堂中教師在糾錯(cuò)方式的選擇上存在差異。中級(jí)口語課堂中,教師在糾正詞匯、語法和語用偏誤時(shí),傾向于使用諸如引導(dǎo)、元語言提示、澄清請(qǐng)求等需要進(jìn)行語義協(xié)商的糾錯(cuò)方式,而初級(jí)口語課堂中,教師則高頻次使用“明確糾正”的糾錯(cuò)方式。不同水平學(xué)生在糾錯(cuò)方式的理解回應(yīng)情況也呈現(xiàn)一定的差異。初級(jí)水平學(xué)生僅對(duì)糾正語音偏誤的“元語言提示”有較高的理解回應(yīng)率。而中級(jí)水平的學(xué)生對(duì)于六種糾錯(cuò)方式的理解回應(yīng)情況均較好。另外,我們也對(duì)協(xié)商類糾錯(cuò)方式的糾錯(cuò)效果進(jìn)行了分析。根據(jù)這些統(tǒng)計(jì)和分析結(jié)果,我們提出了諸如豐富課堂糾錯(cuò)方式,關(guān)注學(xué)生理解回應(yīng)情況等教學(xué)建議。
[Abstract]:Error-correcting feedback has a great influence on learners' second language acquisition, and it is also a problem that teachers must face in teaching. In the 1970s, the study of foreign second language teaching started, after decades of research. At the end of the 20th century, there have been a lot of researches on teachers' error correction feedback in the field of foreign language teaching in China. In recent years, with the vigorous development of Chinese as a second language, Chinese as a second language acquisition has made some achievements. But in contrast, the research results are still not rich enough, lack of classroom-based empirical research. In this paper, the author analyzes and collates the error-correcting feedback in the classroom of Beijing second Foreign language University, and investigates the students' understanding and response. This paper summarizes the characteristics of teachers' error correction feedback in TCFL, finds out the problems and puts forward some teaching suggestions. The results show that there are some similarities and differences between teachers' error-correcting feedback and students' understanding responses. The statistical results show that in the choice of error-correction methods, teachers tend to "restate" this way, and the frequency of "explicit correction" is also very high. Aiming at the four kinds of errors in pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and pragmatics, there are differences in teachers' choice of error-correcting methods in different oral English classes. In intermediate oral class, teachers tend to use error correction methods such as guidance, meta-linguistic cues and clarification requests when correcting lexical, grammatical and pragmatic errors, while in primary oral classes, teachers tend to use error-correcting methods that require semantic negotiation. Teachers use a "clear correction" error correction method at high frequency. There are also some differences in the understanding and response of students at different levels in error correction. Primary level students only have a higher understanding and response rate to the meta-linguistic hint of correcting phonetic bias. The students at the intermediate level have better understanding and response to the six ways of error correction. In addition, we also analyze the error correction effect of negotiation error correction methods. Based on these statistical and analytical results, we put forward some teaching suggestions, such as enriching classroom error correction methods and paying attention to students' understanding and response.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京第二外國語學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H195.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 祖曉梅;馬嘉儷;;漢語教師和學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)課堂糾錯(cuò)反饋信念和態(tài)度的比較[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);2015年04期

2 朱明慧;英語口語課中的糾錯(cuò)策略[J];外語界;1996年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1899228