《The Effect of Pretask Instruction on Learner’s Attention to Form During Taskbased Interaction A study in the Chinese EFL context任务前教师指导对任务中学生形式注意的影响—— 一项基于EFL课堂的准实验研究.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The Effect of Pretask Instruction on Learner’s Attention to Form During Taskbased Interaction A study in the Chinese EFL context任务前教师指导对任务中学生形式注意的影响—— 一项基于EFL课堂的准实验研究.doc（68页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、任务前教师指导对任务中学生形式注意的影响 一项基于EFL课堂的准实验研究The Effect of Pre-task Instruction on Learners Attention to Form During Task-based Interaction: A study in the Chinese EFL context摘要在二语/外语教学法中，“形式”与“意义”的关系问题一直是研究者关注的焦点。自上世纪九十年代以来，国内外二语/外语课堂教学大力倡导交际法教学，显著改善了学习者使用英语的流利性程度。然而，随着教学和研究的不断深入，研究者发现学生在语言交际功能不断挺高的前提下，语言准确
2、性却不容乐观，这成为交际教学法发展的一个阻碍因素。基于此，Long (1988)最先提出了形式聚焦（FOF）的说法，即在以意义为主的课堂中关注形式。此后许多研究者如Ellis (2001),Long 和Robinson (1998), Doughty 和Williams(1998)等开始探讨如何把形式聚焦（FOF）融入到以交际为中心的课堂研究中来。随着社会文化视角下合作学习研究的发展，研究者发现在交际型课堂中采用小组合作的形式，让学生在协商互动中完成任务，是在有意义的讨论中引起学生对语言形式的有效注意的重要途径。近年来国内外关于任务类型，任务复杂度，任务难度，任务处理条件等在学生语言准确度方面
3、的影响的研究逐渐增多，但大都没有强调教师在其中发挥的作用。虽然现在倡导 “以学生为中心”的教学模式，但是课堂中教师的作用依然不可小觑。由维果茨基和费厄斯坦提出的中介理论对外语教师有着深刻的启示。中介理论认为外语课堂中的英语教师应该扮演着中介者的角色，帮助学习者成为自主的语言学习者。基于以上分析，本课题试图通过实验研究检验同等任务内容下，有无任务前的教师指导（有关会话协商策略的指导）对任务中学生形式注意程度以及对学生正确解决注意到的语言问题的影响。来自泰州某学院英语专业的32名水平中等的学生参加了本次研究。其中18名同学作为实验组接受任务前教师指导，另外14名同学作为无任务前指导的对照组。每组同
4、学均被随机组合成2人的对子形式，因此，实验组中共有9个对子，对照组中共有7个对子。本研究中实验组学生在任务开始前接受教师关于会话协商策略的指导，其他实验过程与对照组完全相同，即均借助教师多媒体展示任务要求并解释，采用相同的口语任务(即拼图式任务)，同时对每个对子的互动都用录音笔进行了录音，最后对子中的两人根据图片内容合作完成一篇作文。对学生录音转写的数据分析表明，在学生的互动中共出现了406个语言问题，其中266个语言问题被学生注意到。在被学生注意到的语言问题中，共有234个被正确解决。通过SPSS 13.0统计分析，结果表明:任务前教师指导对学生语言形式注意的程度有着显著的影响。实验组的学生
5、比对照组的学生能更多地关注语言形式。其比例分别是71.37%和57.56%；有任务前教师指导的学生正确解决所出现的语言问题的程度比无任务前指导的学生明显要高，其比例分别为64.1%和48.84%，这说明任务前教师指导对学生语言准确性的提高起到积极作用；但对比两组学生正确解决的语言问题与所关注到的语言问题的比例，分析显示没有显著性差异，其比例分别为89.82%和84.85%，这可能是由于学生语言水平相差不大导致的；就两组学生产出的作文质量而言，实验组学生的作文均分要比对照组学生均分要高，主要原因是实验组作文在词汇，形态，句法方面的均分比对照组作文得分高，而在内容和组织结构方面的差异不大。这说明互
6、动中的形式注意讨论对学生作文的准确度方面起到积极作用。该研究证明在任务型英语课堂教学中，有效发挥教师的中介作用对学生在有意义的课堂讨论中对语言形式的注意有积极作用。关键词： 聚焦形式教学，任务前指导，协商AbstractIn the pedagogy of English as a foreign/second language, the relationship between “meaning” and “form” has always been a controversial topic to the researchers. Since the 1990s, Communicativ
7、e Language Teaching which could significantly improve the fluency of English has enjoyed great popularity in language classrooms. However, with the development of teaching and research, the researchers found that in spite of a great improvement in students communicative use of language, its accuracy
8、 is not so optimistic, which became an impediment of the development in communicative language teaching approach. Based on this, Long (1988) first proposed an option-Focus on form (Fonf) which attempts to combine communicative language use with instruction on grammar forms on context. Since then man
9、y researchers such as Ellis (2001), Long and Robinson (1998) and Doughty and Williams (1998) began to explore how to integrate Fonf into the communicative language classrooms.With the development of research in cooperative learning within socio-cultural perspective, researchers found that the use of
10、 collaborative tasks, in which learners are usually assigned to work in pairs or small groups, is one of the effective ways for learners to focus on language use. In recent years, studies on factors that can affect learners attention to form have been conducted a lot, such as the nature of collabora
11、tion (Swain & Lapkin, 1998), task types (Storch, 2001; Williams, 1999), and length of task discourse (Williams, 1999). However, in most of these studies, teachers role has not been paid enough attention to and even in some cases been neglected. In spite of a popular preference of learner-centered at
12、mosphere in language classrooms, the role of teachers is still not to be underestimated. And mediation theory, which was put up by Vygotsky and Feuerstein, is of great significance for teachers. It believes that the English teachers should play the role to help learners to become autonomous language
13、 learners. But it is a problem for teachers to consider how to make this mediating function to its optimal condition. In view of those above, the present study was carried out to investigate the effect of pre-task instruction on learners attention to form. 32 intermediate English majors from a colle
14、ge in Taizhou, China participated in the study. Among them, 9 pairs were in the experiment group with pre-task instruction and 7 pairs in the control group without instruction. Data involving both groups were collected through the same procedure using a jigsaw task except in the pre-task phase, wher
15、e the experiment group was given instructions about some common conversational devices, while the control group was not. After depicting the given pictures, each pair in both groups would produce a cooperative composition. The interaction of each pair was recorded with a recording pen and then trans
16、cribed. A total of 406 linguistic problems were found in learners interactions, among which, 266 problems had been attended to by learners and generated into language-related episodes (LREs). Among the 266 LREs, 234 problems were solved correctly. These figures were computed in the SPSS 13.0 program
17、. Results showed that: (1) Pre-task instruction had significant effect on learners attention to form. Learners in the experiment group paid more attention to form than those in the control group; (2) More problems were solved correctly in the experiment group than in the control group; While the rat
18、io of the number of problems solved correctly to the number of LREs was not significantly different between the two groups, which may be due to the similar proficiency levels of the two groups; (3) Students compositions in the experiment group got higher marks than those done in the control group, m
19、ainly on vocabulary, morphology and syntax, but no significant difference on the measurements of content and organization. In all, the study shows that teachers as mediators play a crucial role in learners attention to form in the task-based English teaching. Key words: focus on form, pre-task instr
20、uction, negotiationContents摘要3Abstract4Contents5List of Tables7Abbreviations8Chapter One Introduction81.1 Background of the study（除首字母外，其余不必大写，下同）81.2 Significance of the study101.3 Structure of the thesis11（二级标题与Chapter 对齐，不缩进，我已做调整，下同）Chapter Two Conceptual framework and literature review112.1 Foc
21、us on form (Fonf)112.1.1 Background of Focus on form112.1.2 Theoretical framework132.1.2.1 Information Processing Model132.1.2.2 The Noticing Hypothesis132.1.2.3 The Interaction Hypothesis132.1.3 Definition of Focus on Form142.1.4 Types of Focus on form15 这里的这些概念、假设等似乎还是没有理顺关系。建议：2.1 Focus-on-form a
22、nd related theories 2.1.1 Introduction 2.1.2 Information processing Model 2.1.3 The Noticing Hypothesis 2.1.4 The Interaction Hypothesis 2.1.5 The concept of focus-on-form and its types （注意，三级标题与二级标题，只缩进三个字符（包括.）,下同）2.2 The concept of negotiation162.2.1 Definition of negotiation162.2.2 Types of Nego
23、tiation162.2.3 Conversational modification devices in negotiation 182.3 Mediation Theory182.3.1 Introduction182.3.2 Mediating role of teachers in tasks19 这两章建议稍作些调整：2.2 Negotiation in L2 interaction2.2.1 Introduction2.2.2 Types of negotiation2.2.3 Conversational devices in negotiation2.3 Mediated le
24、arning2.3.1 Introduction2.3.2 Content and forms of mediation for learning2.3.3 The mediating role of the teacher in learning tasks2.4 Review of empirical studies related to the present study192.4.1 Focus-on-form and the second language development192.4.2 Task-related factors and learners attention t
25、o form（略提几个主要的研究就行了）2.4.3 Pre-task planning time and learners attention to from2.4.4 Pre-task instruction and learners attention to form2.4.5 Summary and comments2.4.2 Factors affecting learners attention to form202.4.2.1 Pre-task planning time and attention to form202.4.2.2 Pre-task instruction and
26、 attention to form212.4.3 Limitations of previous research on pre-task activities and attention to form212.5 Summary22Chapter Three Research Methodology223.1 Research questions223.2 Variables223.2.1 Independant variable: With and without pre-task instruction（PTI）233.2.2 Dependant varialbe 1: Extent
27、of learners attention to form233.2.3 Dependant variable 2: Learners correct solutions to linguistic problems233.2.4 Dependant variable 3: Quality of learners cooperative compositions233.2.4.1 Comparison of the numbers of the linguistic errors233.2.4.2 Comparison of the total scores of the compositio
28、ns23 (黄色部分不作为四级标题)3.3 Participants233.4 The oral task and material243.5 The pre-task instruction（具体介绍它的内容和呈现方式，因为是本研究的核心所在，因此专设一节）3.6 Procedure243.6 Pilot study（建议不单设，并入新设的3.5，说明最后的instruction版本及呈现方式是经过了pilot之后改进而成的）253.7 Data collection and analysis253.6.1 Recording and transcription of task discus
29、sions3.7.2 Identification and coding of language-related episodes (LREs)253.7.2 Scoring criteria of cooperative compositions263.8 Summary26Chapter Four Results and Discussion274.1 Effect of PTI on the extent of learners attention to form274.2 Effect of PTI on learners correct solutions to linguistic
30、 problems attended to.284.3 Comparison of the quality of cooperative compositions by the two groups304.3.1 The number of linguistic errors in cooperative compositions by the two groups.304.3.2 The mean scores of learners cooperative compositions by the two groups.314.2 Discussions324.2.1 Pre-task in
31、struction and the extent of learners attention to form334.2.2 Pre-task instruction and learners correct solutions to linguistic problems .344.2.3 Focus-on-form discussion and quality of cooperative composition36 （既然将讨论单列，就应不仅仅是对结果本身的再说明，而是要结合一些理论来认识这些结果，因此我将标题改的较为general些，而不是那么specific、只对本研究结果。4.3 S
32、ummary37Chapter Five Conclusion375.1 Major findings of the study375.2 Pedagogical implications of the study385.3 Limitations and suggestions39References40Appendix 144Appendix 245Acknowledgement46List of TablesTable 2.1 Types of form-focused instruction16Table 3.1 Variables in the present study24Tabl
33、e 3.2 Numbers of linguistic problems, LREs and problems solved correctly26Table 4.1 Numbers of linguistic problems, LREs and problems solved correctly27Table 4.2 Numbers of LREs, linguistic problems in instruction and non-instruction pairs interactions28Table 4.3 Chi-Square tests28Table 4.4 Numbers
34、of LREs solved correctly, and total LREs in both groups29Table 4.5 Chi-Square tests29Table 4.6 Numbers of LREs solved correctly, and total number of LREs in both groups29Table 4.7 Chi-Square tests30Table 4.8 Comparison of the numbers of the linguistic errors between two groups30Table 4.9 Independent
35、 sample test31Table 4.10 Average ratings of learners compositions in both groups31Table 4.11 Independent sample test for scores of compositions32Abbreviations1. Fonf: Focus on form2. Fonfs: Focus on forms3. FonM: Focus on meaning4. SLA: second language acquisition5. ESL: English as a second language
36、6. EFL: English as a foreign language7. L1: the first language8. L2: the second language9. LRE: language-related episodeChapter One IntroductionThis chapter as the introductory part of the thesis presents the background of the study, its significance and the organization of the thesis.1.1 Background
37、 of the Study（所有标题与前一段距离0.5行，与后一段行距0行，下同）In the pedagogy of English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL), the relationship between “meaning” and “form” has always been a controversial topic to the researchers. In the 1980s, traditionally form-oriented language instruction (e.g. Grammar Translation
38、 Method, Audiolingual Method）was criticized widely, which prompted a shift toward meaning-oriented pedagogies (e.g. Communicative Language Teaching and Content-Based Instruction). As a result, language teachers have been urged to develop students communicative skills and their fluency in language us
39、e, whereas grammar instruction has been regarded as counterproductive. Teachers do not tend to explicitly teach forms of language, and in many classrooms teachers simply ignore syntactic errors in students output performances. If things continue like this, the result would be that although the learn
40、ers language proficiency in terms of fluency may develop, their accuracy in language production remains problematic.However, in recent decades, there have been vigorous debates on formal instruction in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). In the 1990s, the validity of teaching approaches
41、that focus primarily on meaning began to be questioned. Findings of a wide range of studies examining the French immersion classrooms suggested that when second language learning is solely experiential and focused on communicative fluency, some linguistic features do not develop to target like accur
42、acy and this situation occurs in spite of years of meaningful, comprehensible input and opportunities for interaction (e.g. Lightbown&Spada, 1990; Spada&Lightbown, 1993; Swain&Lapkin, 1998). Now people have realized that communicative ESL teaching alone is unable to promote high levels of accuracy i
43、n learners, but there is also concern how not to to return to the “old fashioned” grammar-based language teaching.Fortunately, some second language researchers proposed that form and meaning should not be viewed in an either-or relationship but complementary to each other, they have advocated that c
44、ertain degree of focus on form needs to be incorporated into instruction primarily focused on meaning and communication. Long (1988, 1991) and Long and Crooker (1992) therefore put up with a third option-the concept of “focus on form” (Fonf in brief), which attempts to combine communicative language
45、 use with instruction on linguistic forms in context. Now there is a general consensus in the field of SLA that some attention to language form is necessary.Long (1991) indicates that “focus on form” (这已经成为一个专门术语或概念，故全文要选定一种特定方式来表述，如：focus-on-form/focus-on-forms，或者用Fonf/ Fonfs，或者用引号“focus on form/s”
46、，任意一种都行但要固定，也不可只用focus on form/s,以免混同一般意思。当然，Long等人最初用focus on form 的格式不用改，那时它还没有完全成为一个特定概念) is intended to overtly draws learners attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication (pp. 45-46). To prevent possible misundersta
47、ndings of terms, another term-“focus on forms”was coined. Doughty and Williams (1998) further clarified that: “focus on forms” (Fonfs) and “focus on form” are not polar opposites in the way that form and meaning have often been considered to be. Rather, “focus on form”（又是上面的问题！） entails a focus on formal elements of language（这里意思好像不完整、不准确）, whereas “focus on forms” is limited to such a focus, and “focus on meaning” excludes it（这里的代词such，it,指的是什么不清楚）（这段话是D &的原话吗？感觉并没有clarify！也许是没有引用全）From this statement, it can be seen t
