本文選題：英語專業(yè)　切入點：英語課堂　出處：《內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：錯誤的出現(xiàn)是二語習(xí)得過程中的必然產(chǎn)物。自上世紀(jì)50年代開始,糾錯反饋在二語習(xí)得過程中的角色一直是一個備受爭議的話題。近年來,越來越多的語言學(xué)家開始意識到在二語學(xué)習(xí)過程中糾錯的重要性,逐漸開展了一系列關(guān)于英語課堂口語糾錯的研究。蘭斯特、郎、喬壯、蘭特等人的研究為后來的研究者針對二語習(xí)得課堂中的口語糾錯的研究提供了一些有效的策略和研究模式。喬壯就糾錯提出了五個問題:糾不糾,糾什么,何時糾,怎么糾,誰來糾。本文以此作為研究基礎(chǔ),調(diào)查英語專業(yè)學(xué)生與教師對于口語糾錯的態(tài)度并探尋二者態(tài)度之間的不同點,為日后英語專業(yè)的課堂教學(xué)提出一些建議,從而能夠更好幫助教師教學(xué)。本文研究過程中使用的研究工具有調(diào)查問卷與采訪。調(diào)查工具中使用的兩份調(diào)查問卷均采自吉小偉(2010)研究中所使用的調(diào)查問卷,包括教師調(diào)查問卷與學(xué)生調(diào)查問卷。問卷調(diào)查在內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)與包頭師范學(xué)院展開,涉及了150名學(xué)生與35位教師。作者以隨機抽選的方式對其中10名學(xué)生與5名教師在問卷調(diào)查之后進行了訪談。本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)英語專業(yè)學(xué)生與教師對于口語糾錯的態(tài)度出于不同的原因存在顯著的差異。(1)在是否糾錯這一問題,學(xué)生與教師對于是否糾錯這一問題都持肯定態(tài)度。但大部分學(xué)生希望其口語中的錯誤都能得到教師的糾正,然而教師則認為應(yīng)該有針對性的糾正;(2)在糾什么這一問題上,教師認為最值得注意且糾正的是語用錯誤,學(xué)生則認為是語法錯誤和語用錯誤;(3)針對何時糾錯這一方面,絕大多數(shù)教師認為應(yīng)該在學(xué)生發(fā)言之后再進行糾正,部分學(xué)生同意發(fā)言后糾,部分學(xué)生認為應(yīng)該立即糾正;(4)在糾錯的具體方式上,教師較為喜歡元語言線索反饋,而學(xué)生則傾向于明確糾錯;(5)絕大多數(shù)的學(xué)生認為教師應(yīng)當(dāng)是糾錯的主要實施者,教師認為在遇到不同錯誤時,糾錯對象也應(yīng)該不同。根據(jù)這一結(jié)果,作者在本文結(jié)尾部分提出了教學(xué)建議:當(dāng)教師確定要進行糾錯時,應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合學(xué)生的語言水平、學(xué)生的性格特點以及學(xué)生對于糾錯的喜好進行考慮。與此同時,教師應(yīng)該在糾錯時,以友好、尊重及肯定的態(tài)度對待學(xué)生。
[Abstract]:The emergence of errors is an inevitable product of second language acquisition. Since the 1950s, the role of error correction feedback in second language acquisition has been a controversial topic. More and more linguists have begun to realize the importance of error-correction in the process of second language learning, and have gradually carried out a series of studies on the correction of oral English. Rand's research has provided some effective strategies and research models for later researchers to study oral error correction in the second language acquisition classroom. Joe Zhuang has put forward five questions on error correction: correct wrong, correct what, when and how to correct. On the basis of this research, this paper investigates the attitudes of English majors and teachers towards oral correction and explores the differences between them, and puts forward some suggestions for classroom teaching of English majors in the future. The research tools used in this study include questionnaires and interviews. The two questionnaires used in the research are collected from the questionnaire used by Ji Xiaowei (2010). The questionnaire was conducted in Inner Mongolia normal University and Baotou normal College. 150 students and 35 teachers were involved. 10 students and 5 teachers were interviewed by random sampling. The present study found that English majors and teachers had a correct attitude towards oral English. There are significant differences between degrees for different reasons. Both students and teachers have a positive attitude on whether to correct mistakes. However, most students hope that the mistakes in their spoken language can be corrected by the teachers. However, the teachers think that there should be targeted corrections. Teachers think that pragmatic errors are the most noteworthy and correct ones, while students think that they are grammatical errors and pragmatic errors. Most teachers think that correction should be done after the students have spoken. Some students agree to correct the speech after speaking, while some students think that it should be rectified immediately) in the specific ways of correcting errors, teachers prefer metalanguage feedback. However, students tend to make it clear that the majority of students think that the teacher should be the main implementer of error correction, and the teacher thinks that the object of error correction should be different when meeting with different error. According to this result, At the end of this paper, the author puts forward some teaching suggestions: when teachers decide to correct errors, they should take into account students' language proficiency, students' personality characteristics and students' preference for error correction. Teachers should treat students with friendliness, respect and affirmation when correcting mistakes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H319.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 胡堅;“錯誤”研究的理論與方法及錯誤糾正策略[J];山東外語教學(xué);2004年05期

2 向朝紅;“監(jiān)察”學(xué)習(xí)理論及其對口語錯誤糾正的啟示[J];外語與外語教學(xué);1999年07期

3 邱兆杰;EFL教學(xué)中的糾錯問題——學(xué)習(xí)者的看法和要求[J];外語界;1997年02期

4 朱明慧;英語口語課中的糾錯策略[J];外語界;1996年03期

5 戴煒棟，束定芳;試論影響外語習(xí)得的若干重要因素──外語教學(xué)理論系列文章之一[J];外國語(上海外國語大學(xué)學(xué)報);1994年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 胡越竹;外語課堂語言錯誤的糾正[D];上海外國語大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 白會凌;錯誤分析理論在英語口語教學(xué)中的應(yīng)用[D];貴州師范大學(xué);2006年

2 田永芳;錯誤分析及其對我國外語教學(xué)的影響[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

3 葛學(xué)奎;學(xué)生視角下中國大學(xué)英語課堂糾錯行為再研究[D];東南大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號：1662654