【作者】 袁华平；

【导师】 向朝红；

【作者基本信息】 重庆大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 20世纪70年代末,课堂互动成为二语习得研究领域颇为关注的一个方面。作为课堂互动中的极其重要的一部分,纠正性反馈,尤其是重述和引导这两种不同类型的反馈方式,引起越来越多研究者的兴趣。然而,由于受诸多因素的影响,无论是理论研究还是实证研究,关于重述和引导这两种反馈方式对二语习得效果的结论还存在分歧。近年来,研究者们开始关注各种内在因素(如学习者语言水平,记忆容量等)对反馈习得效果的制约作用,研究也趋向细化,但仍存在若干不足。本研究以注意假设和互动假说为理论框架,结合学习者语言水平因素,研究重述和引导这两种不同类型的纠正性反馈对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的影响。具体研究问题如下:(1)重述和引导这两种不同类型的反馈方式对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的效果是否有显著差异?如果有显著差异,那么(2)上述差异是否是受学习者自身英语水平的影响?本研究采用前测-后测设计。来自湖北一所高中的三个高一班共72名学生参加了本实验,并按自然班随机分成三组,即重述组,引导组和控制组。每组根据中考英语成绩又划分为高分组和低分组。在为期四周的实验中:第一周,三组分别参加了前测(看图写作和冠词改错);第二周,在2次任务型的师生互动中,重述组和引导组既参与任务又分别接受重述和引导这两种不同形式的反馈,控制组参与任务却不接受任何纠正性反馈,任务完成后三组参加了即时后测;第四周,三组又分别参加了延时后测。实验结果表明:(1)引导对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的效果明显高于重述。在看图写作和冠词改错的即时后测中,引导组的优越性并不明显,但在延时后测中引导组显著高于重述组;(2)引导与重述的显著差异受到学习者自身英语水平的影响,即重述和引导对高分组的学习者效果都很显著,而引导对低分组的学习者效果比重述更显著。具体地说,重述高分组和引导高分组在看图写作和冠词改错的即时后测和延时后测中无显著差异,但引导低分组在看图写作和冠词改错即时后测和延时后测中显著高于重述低分组。本实验研究结果与Ammar和Spada (2006)的研究结果基本一致。根据注意假设,学习者注意到的越多学到的越多。在本实验的课堂互动中,重述组的学习者容易忽略重述这种隐性反馈方式,而引导组的学习者可以更容易的注意到引导这种显性的反馈方式,因而,引导明显优于重述。本研究结果还进一步证实了互动假说中习得受学习者自身水平制约这一理论。因此,教师在课堂互动中应针对不同水平英语学习者采用适当的反馈方式。更多还原

【Abstract】 Classroom interaction has been the center of interest in the field of second language acquisition since the end of 1970s. Corrective feedback especially recasts and prompts, as the very important part in the classroom interaction, has aroused many researchers’attention. However, due to various factors, the results of both the theoretical and empirical studies on the relative efficacy of recasts and prompts are in inconsistence. In recent years, researchers have started to investigate how learner-internal factors (like learner’s proficiency level, memory capacity, etc.) mediate the effectiveness of corrective feedback. With more studies have been done on the learner-internal mediating factors of corrective feedback, there are still gaps in this research scope.Based on Schmidt (1990)’s Noticing Hypothesis and Long (1996)’s Interaction Hypothesis, this study investigated the relative efficacy of recasts and prompts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners and explored the effect of one possible moderating factor—learners’language proficiency. Two research questions were addressed in the study:1. Do recasts and prompts have differential effects on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners? If yes,2. Are the differential effects of recasts and prompts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles by Chinese EFL learners moderated by learners’language proficiency?The present study employed a pretest and posttests design. Three intact classes, including 72 Grade 10 high-school students from a high school of Hubei Province, involved in the study. The three intact classes were assigned to three conditions randomly: a recast group, a prompt group and a control group. Each group was further divided into a high-proficiency subgroup and a low–proficiency subgroup according to the student’s English score in the high school entrance exam. The experiment of this study took over 4 weeks. In the first week, the pretest was conducted on the three groups respectively, including a writing test and an error correction test. In the second week, the three participating groups received two task-based treatment sessions. During the treatment sessions, the recast group did the two narrative tasks and received recasts; the prompt group did the two narrative tasks and received prompts; and the control group did the two narrative tasks but did not receive any corrective feedback. Then, the immediate posttest was conducted immediately after the treatment. In the fourth week, the delayed posttest was conducted on the three groups.On the basis of data analyses, two major findings were presented as follows: (1) overall prompts were more effective than recasts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners. Specifically, both on the writing test and the error correction test, the prompt group didn’t significantly outperform the recast group on the immediate posttest; however, the prompt group significantly outperformed the recast group on the delayed posttest. (2) The differential effects of prompts and recasts were related to the learners’language proficiency. Specifically, prompts and recasts were equally effective for the high-proficiency participants both on the writing posttests and error correction posttests; however, prompts were significantly more effective than recasts for the low-proficiency learners both on the writing posttests and error correction posttests.The findings of this study were in line with that of Ammar and Spada (2006). This study provided certain support for the Noticing Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The first finding of the study suggested that participants in the recast group may not perceive recasts (implicit feedback), whereas participants in the prompt group were more possible to notice prompts (operated as explicit feedback in the study). As proposed by the Noticing Hypothesis, learner who notices more learns more, so prompts were more effective than recasts in the learning of target structure. Moreover, the second finding confirmed the Interaction Hypothesis that acquisition was mediated by the learner’s proficiency. Therefore, learners’proficiency level should be taken into consideration when providing corrective feedback during the classroom interaction.更多还原