代写 网课代修 会员中心 TAG标签
网站地图 RSS
代写英国termpaper 代写澳洲termpaper
返回首页

英语课堂教学中的显示与交际问题研究

时间:2016-04-28 09:32来源:www.ukassignment.org 作者:留学生作业 点击:
本文旨在通过对利物普大学4名英语教师教学中所使用的显示和交际问题进行数据分析,并对其选择的理论基础和有效性进行了解释。
1. Introduction 介绍
 
对于教学,提问是一个重要的工具。它是由大量的相关研究表明,教师花了50%的课堂时间提问(格雷泽和人,1994)。在有限的课堂教学时间内,充分利用问题是达到教学目标的重要意义。在课堂上,老师要求各种各样的目的,以达到最终的教学目标。在实践中,教师可以选择不同类型的问题,以实现相同的目的,由于几个有影响的因素。在这一研究领域,专家和作者已经发现了许多方法来分类的类型的问题,其中,开花的(认知过程)和汤普森(显示和沟通)是最广泛接受和应用。一般而言,对于教师问题的早期研究,以认知过程为基础的开放分类法是非常普遍的。但对于英语课堂教学,汤普森的观点更为实用,因为具体的教学目标是语言习得与促进学生的认知发展相结合。此外,本文提出了一种新的显示和交际问题之间的关系的看法。
与以往的研究结果相反,数据显示,更多的交际问题被问到比显示问题。这一显着的发现表明,它是不明智的断言沟通的问题总是比在任何质疑条件下的显示问题。英语教师应迅速自如地在两者之间自由地进行教学,使之成为一个成功的课程。For teaching, questioning is a crucial tool. As it is suggested by a number of related researches, teachers spend up to 50% of class time on raising questions (Graesser & Person, 1994). Within limited teaching time in classroom, making good use of question is very significant in reaching the teaching objective. In a class, teacher asks questions for a variety of purposes to reach the final teaching objective. And in practice, teacher may choose different type of question to realize the same purpose due to several influential factors. In this research area, experts and authors have found many approaches to categorize the type of question, and among them, Bloom’s (cognitive process) and Thompson’s (display and communicative) are most widely accepted and applied. Generally speaking, for early researches on teacher questions, Bloom’s taxonomy which is based on cognitive process is very prevalent. But for EFL classes, Thompson’s perspective is more practical-based since the specific teaching objective is language acquisition in combination with promoting students’ cognition progress. This article is aimed at making a data-based discussion on the display and communicative questions used by 4 EFL teachers teaching in the University of Liverpool and giving some interpretation of rationale and effectiveness of their choices. Besides, this article suggests a new view of the relationship between display and communicative questions.  
Opposite to previous researches under the similar topic, data shows that more communicative questions are asked than display questions. This remarkable finding suggests that it is not wise to assert communicative question is always better than display question under any questioning condition. EFL teachers should swift freely between two types of questions to make a lesson successful.  
 
2. Background 背景
 
Just as what has been found by Almeida (2012), teachers always ask a high frequency of questions: ‘a teacher asks, in average, 69 questions per hour, what corresponds to 30000 questions per year.’ That is the reason why teachers have been called ‘professional question makers’ since an early age (Aschner, 1961). Admittedly, questioning is very critical for teacher since it is not only a manifestation of teacher talk (Majid & Mehrdad, 2012), but also a major form of classroom interaction between teacher and student. Speaking from the perspective of teacher talk, Cullen (1998) pointed out that teacher talk of EFL teachers is pivotal since teachers have a superior status in the classroom and so students would take in what is said by the teacher as the only live target input. In terms of classroom interaction, Thompson (1997) emphasized that ‘One of the main forms of interaction between the language teacher and the learner is through questions’. That is to say, time is worthy spending on questions if teacher could involve all students in leaning and form vivid interaction in the classroom. In this background section, review of related literature is made  
from two aspects: question functions, and classification of questions. 
 
2.1 Functions of questions 
For teachers, teaching time is so valuable that no one would waste time asking meaningless questions. As suggested by Christopher H. Tienken, Stephanie Goldberg and Dominic DiRocco (2009), a good teacher should prepare questions before giving the lesson just as what a lawyer would do before coming into the courtroom: ‘Lawyers enter the courtroom with a questioning strategy, aimed at achieving a goal.’(Christopher H. Tienken, Stephanie Goldberg and Dominic DiRocco, 2009) Just as the lawyer, It is of significance that teacher consider his or her teaching objective carefully before preparing any questions. Having a clear teaching objective, the teacher could then choose questions to form a path and then guide students to that goal. When making choices between questions, teacher should be very aware of questions’ functions and make good use of them to reach the teaching objective successfully. First of all, to ensure high quality leaning, students need to be focused, well organized, involved, facilitated and prepared to learn. In a classroom, a teacher can never order students to be what he or she wants them to be. Instead, the teacher has a tool called questioning. Questioning is an effective tool for teachers since questions have various functions such as “focusing attention, exerting disciplinary control, getting feedback and most important of all, encouraging students to participate” (Majid & Mehrdad, 2012, p. 162). Besides, teachers can also use questions “to elicit information, to check understanding, and also to control behavior” (Nunan and Lamb, 1996, p. 80). Moreover, questions are also asked to “arouse curiosity, focus attention, develop an active approach, stimulate pupils, structure the task, diagnose difficulties, communicate expectation, help children reflect, develop thinking skills, help group reflection, provoke discussion and show interest in pupils’ ideas”. (Wilayat Bibi Khan and Hafiz Muhammad Inamullah, 2011) Likewise, newly conducted research added that “Questioning strategy is a fine effective strategy in teacher-student interaction, and it benefits the construction of new teacher-student relationship” (Sun, 2012). That is to say, questioning has another potentially important function which is affecting students’ emotional changes and developing teacher-student relationship. Assumingly, a teacher seldom uses questions and keeps giving lecture of language knowledge; student could feel alienated and less responsible for their learning. It is of high importance that EFL teacher uses questions to make students emotionally motivated and genuinely interested in the language. Thirdly, question’s function can be reflected from a different perspective which is scaffolding. In Kim’s research done in 2010, she found out that questions have three functions in terms of scaffolding. The first function of question is “to share teacher’s expectations for building a supportive classroom community and learning goals with students” (Kim, 2010). The second function that question can have is “to deepen student understanding about English language, text comprehension, and communicating while maintaining a supportive classroom learning environment”  (Kim, 2010). The last function is “engaging students in sharing” (Kim, 2010). In one sentence, teacher can use questions to “gradually released responsibility to promote the development of student ownership in language learning” (Kim, 2010). It can be concluded that questions can have a variety of functions. Different questions should be raised according to different purposes of EFL teachers. Only when the function of question and the purpose of teacher are matched to each other could the questioning to be said effective. The interesting thing is that teacher may choose different types of question to realize the same purpose. That is way scholars, in this area, have done a lot of efforts to categorize questions. 
 
2.2 Classification of questions 
The last section has discussed several widely agreed functions of question and mentioned the importance of establishing classification of it; this section introduces two main ways of classifying questions. There are actually many possible perspectives to do that, but only effective categorization of question can lead to useful research findings. As it is said by Gall (1970), “Most of the question-Classification systems are composed almost entirely of categories based on the type of cognitive process required to answer the question.” In other words, the early stage of question classification is focused on cognitive process. Among all 11 classification systems listed out by Gall, the most widely applied one is Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom (1956) divided questions into 6 stages arranging from the lowest to the highest cognitive  
order: knowledge, comprehension, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application. Although the system was establish in the year 1956, it is has been so popular and representative that even researches based on Bloom’s taxonomy still can be easily found in recent years. For example, Wilayat Bibi Khan and Hafiz Muhammad Inamullah’s research (2011) found out that: “Majority of the questions were lower order i.e. they were knowledge, comprehension, and application based as these levels are considered as lower order under bloom’s hierarchy of cognitive domain.” They continued to find out the patterns of question choice related to EFL teachers. In conclusion, they gave two important points. The first point is related to gender: female teachers use more questions in the low level due to their limited linguistic capabilities. The second point is about experience: fresh teachers ask both more low and high order questions. However, scholars established another style of question classification since language learning is not simply individual cognitive process. Instead, August & Hakuta(1997) proved that “ELLs are more likely to succeed in learning English as a second language (ESL) when they have teachers, peers, and community members who affirm their cognitive and linguistic capacities and provide support (August & Hakuta, 1997). It means that for EFL teachers, their first priority is not to promote students’ ability to recall or analysis or apply but to use these cognitive activities as media of language teaching and learning. The point is not how far students can think but how much they can express using English. Under this consideration, cognitive process-based classification of questions may be not comprehensive enough to get an over view of  


推荐内容
  • 英国作业
  • 新西兰作业
  • 爱尔兰作业
  • 美国作业
  • 加拿大作业
  • 代写英国essay
  • 代写澳洲essay
  • 代写美国essay
  • 代写加拿大essay
  • MBA Essay
  • Essay格式范文
  • 澳洲代写assignment
  • 代写英国assignment
  • 新西兰代写assignment
  • Assignment格式
  • 如何写assignment
  • 代写英国termpaper
  • 代写澳洲termpaper
  • 英国coursework代写
  • PEST分析法
  • literature review
  • Research Proposal
  • 参考文献格式
  • case study
  • presentation
  • report格式
  • Summary范文
  • common application
  • Personal Statement
  • Motivation Letter
  • Application Letter
  • recommendation letter
  • Europe (24-hours)
    EN:13917206902
    china (24-hours)
    CN:13917206902
    在线客服团队
    全天候24小时在线客服 QQ:1455780998

    微信在线客服(24小时)

    微信公众订阅号