本文選題：教師提問行為　切入點：學(xué)生回答類型　出處：《中央民族大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文選取A、B兩省內(nèi)地西藏中學(xué)的六節(jié)初中數(shù)學(xué)課堂實錄作為研究對象,課型為新授課,其中三節(jié)代數(shù)課,三節(jié)幾何課。本研究旨在通過對這六節(jié)實錄的案例分析得到西藏內(nèi)初班數(shù)學(xué)課堂教師提問行為的特點和問題,并給予相應(yīng)的建議。本文的研究過程:第一步進(jìn)行文獻(xiàn)研究,在閱讀大量文獻(xiàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,明確本文的研究背景和意義,梳理相關(guān)文獻(xiàn),確定研究方法——視頻觀察法、文本分析法和量化研究,并選取研究對象;第二步進(jìn)行研究設(shè)計,將所選取的六節(jié)課堂實錄中的提問性語言和回答語言逐句轉(zhuǎn)錄成文本,通過對課堂提問性語言的文獻(xiàn)研究,并結(jié)合西藏內(nèi)初班課堂實錄的特點構(gòu)建編碼框架。教師提問類型分為無意識、驗證性、識記性、復(fù)述性、提示性、理解性、評價性提問7種類型。其中無意識提問稱為無效提問,驗證性、識記性、復(fù)述性、提示性提問稱為簡單提問,理解性、評價性提問稱為復(fù)雜提問。按照教師讓學(xué)生回答的不同方式,將教師提問方式分為不用作答、學(xué)生群體回答、指定某個小組代表回答、指定某個學(xué)生回答、教師自問自答、師生共同回答六種類型。其中指定某個小組代表回答和指定某個學(xué)生回答稱為控制型提問,學(xué)生群體回答和師生共同回答稱為自由型提問。結(jié)合教師的提問,將學(xué)生的回答按學(xué)生解決問題的認(rèn)知程度分為無答、附和性、識記性、理解性和創(chuàng)造性回答,其中前三種歸為低認(rèn)知水平的回答,后兩種歸為高認(rèn)知水平的回答。第三步根據(jù)編碼框架對轉(zhuǎn)錄的腳本行逐句進(jìn)行編碼。第四步對編碼所獲得的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行量化分析。第五步得出結(jié)論、發(fā)現(xiàn)問題,并提出建議。本文的主要結(jié)論為:六位教師的簡單提問普遍高于復(fù)雜提問,其中提示性提問所占的比例比較高。在不同的教學(xué)環(huán)節(jié)中,C1、C2、C3、C5課堂中講解新課環(huán)節(jié)教師的提問最多,C4和C6課堂中鞏固練習(xí)環(huán)節(jié)教師的提問最多,這種情況與以往傳統(tǒng)課堂的互動特點比較一致。在提問方式中自由型提問多于控制型提問,其中讓學(xué)生群體回答的方式最多,其次是指定某個學(xué)生回答,教師自問自答的方式非常少,說明教師與學(xué)生的互動較為良好。六堂課中學(xué)生的低認(rèn)知水平回答多于高認(rèn)知水平的回答,其中C1、C2、C3、C4、C6課堂中,學(xué)生的附和性回答較多,由此可知,西藏內(nèi)初班的學(xué)生在數(shù)學(xué)課堂上回答問題時更多的愿意附和老師或極少數(shù)學(xué)生的回答來作答。六堂課中學(xué)生的創(chuàng)造性回答幾乎為零,學(xué)生的思考能力和創(chuàng)新能力有待于提高。最后根據(jù)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)教師的復(fù)雜提問和控制型提問方式都對學(xué)生的高認(rèn)知回答水平有一定的影響,故教師應(yīng)注重對問題的設(shè)計,以提高學(xué)生的回答水平和思考能力。結(jié)合上述研究結(jié)論,針對教師的提問類型和提問方式中較為突出的現(xiàn)象加以分析,并對"是不是"問題和"滿堂問"問題進(jìn)行探討。
[Abstract]:This paper selects six junior middle school mathematics classroom records of Tibetan middle school in the two provinces of Ajib as the research object, the class type is the new teaching, among them three algebra courses, The purpose of this study is to find out the characteristics and problems of the teachers' questioning behavior in the first class of mathematics class in Tibet by analyzing the six recorded cases, and to give corresponding suggestions. The research process of this paper is as follows: the first step is to carry out the literature research. On the basis of reading a large number of documents, this paper clarifies the research background and significance, combs the related literature, determines the research method-video observation method, text analysis method and quantitative research, and selects the research object. The question language and answer language are transcribed into the text sentence by sentence, and the literature on the questioning language in the classroom is studied. According to the characteristics of the first class in Tibet, the author constructs the coding framework. The teachers' questioning is classified into unconscious, confirmatory, memorizing, retelling, prompting and understanding. There are 7 types of evaluative questions, in which unconscious questions are called invalid questions, confirmatory questions, memorization, repetition, and prompt questions are called simple questions, comprehensible questions, Evaluation questions are called complex questions. According to the different ways that teachers ask students to answer, teachers are divided into non-answering, student group answering, appointing a group representative to answer, appointing a student to answer, and the teacher asking and answering himself. Teachers and students answer six types of questions together. One group representative answers and one student answers questions called control questions. Student group answers and teachers answer questions together are called free questions. According to the students' cognitive level of problem-solving, the students' answers were classified as non-answer, echo, memorization, comprehension and creative answer, the first three of which were classified as low-cognitive answers. The third step encodes the lines of the transcribed script sentence by sentence according to the coding framework. Step 4th quantifies the data obtained from the encoding. 5th steps draw conclusions and discover the problem. The main conclusions of this paper are as follows: six teachers' simple questions are generally higher than complex ones. Among them, the proportion of indicative questions is relatively high. In different teaching links, the teachers' questions in explaining the new courses are the most, and the teachers' questions in the consolidation exercises are the most in the C _ 4 and C _ 6 classrooms. This situation is consistent with the interaction characteristics of the traditional classroom. In the way of asking questions, the free type of questions is more than the controlled type of questions, among which the students' groups answer the most, the next is to designate a student to answer. There are very few ways for teachers to ask and answer themselves, which shows that the interaction between teachers and students is relatively good. The low cognitive level answers of middle school students in six classes are more than those with high cognitive level, and in the C1C2C2C3C3C4C6 classroom, the students have more echoing answers, which can be seen from this. Students in the first class in Tibet are more willing to answer questions in math classes by echoing the answers of teachers or a very small number of students. The creative answers of middle school students in six classes are almost zero. The students' thinking ability and innovation ability need to be improved. Finally, according to the research, it is found that the teachers' complex questioning and controlling questioning methods have a certain influence on the students' high cognitive level of answer, so the teachers should pay attention to the design of the questions. In order to improve the students' ability of answering and thinking, combined with the above conclusions, this paper analyzes the more prominent phenomena in the teachers' types of questions and ways of questioning, and probes into the questions of "whether or not" and "full of questions".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：G633.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 何偉;孫曉天;蘇傲雪;王兢;;關(guān)于提升內(nèi)高班學(xué)生理科學(xué)業(yè)水平的分析與思考——基于對8所開辦內(nèi)高班學(xué)校的調(diào)查研究[J];民族教育研究;2016年01期

2 李鵬;傅贏芳;;論數(shù)學(xué)課堂提問的誤區(qū)與對策[J];數(shù)學(xué)教育學(xué)報;2013年04期

3 葉立軍;陳莉;;初中數(shù)學(xué)教師課堂提問存在的問題及其對策[J];天津師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(基礎(chǔ)教育版);2012年02期

4 葉立軍;周芳麗;;基于錄像分析背景下的教師提問方式研究[J];教育理論與實踐;2012年05期

5 葉立軍;彭金萍;;教師課堂教學(xué)反饋行為存在的問題及化解策略[J];當(dāng)代教育科學(xué);2012年04期

6 王流瑩;;數(shù)學(xué)課堂提問的類型[J];中小學(xué)教學(xué)研究;2011年04期

7 葉立軍;斯海霞;;代數(shù)課堂教學(xué)中教師的評價行為研究[J];教育理論與實踐;2011年08期

8 石頤園;;關(guān)于數(shù)學(xué)課堂提問有效性的思考[J];教育理論與實踐;2010年20期

9 葉立軍;斯海霞;;當(dāng)前初中數(shù)學(xué)課堂教學(xué)存在的問題及其對策[J];天津師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(基礎(chǔ)教育版);2010年02期

10 葉立軍;斯海霞;;基于錄像分析背景下的代數(shù)課堂教學(xué)提問研究[J];教育理論與實踐;2010年08期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孫慧莉;基于COLT量表的對外漢語課堂觀察量化工具研究[D];北京語言大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：1639595