【作者】 赵云；

【导师】 刘学惠；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 本篇论文,基于输入-输出理论和形式意义教学理论,通过对课堂教学活动原始数据的定量分析,对高职英语课堂教学活动中输入和输出活动、形式关注和意义关注活动进行了描述性研究。输入和输出一直以来是二语习得研究者们关注和探究的课题。二十世纪八十年代Krashen(1981;1994)的输入假说提出了理解性输入的概念。他认为:语言学习者的二语熟练程度与学习者被提供的输入的时间长短有正相关,即:学习者接收到的输入越多,学会语言越快。他主张输入通过语言修饰和提供语境支撑使输入富于理解性。J.Harmer(1983)提出平衡活动的观点(a balanced activities approach),强调了课堂活动中平衡Krashen所说的输入和以交流为目的输出的必要性。Long(1981)认为经互动修饰的输入比单纯语言修饰的输入更重要。Swain(1985)的输出理论提出通过注意/引发、对语言假设的检验和对元语言的反思,促进输出语言习得的准确性。随着第二语言课堂研究的兴起,二语课堂中语法教学的研究扩展到对语言形式关注和意义关注(focus on form and focus on meaning)的研究。二语习得理论的日趋成熟,使语言形式和意义的课堂实证研究有了牢固的基础和理论框架。此方面的研究在国外九十年代就已开展,但国内的研究相对较少,尤其在高职英语课堂领域涉及更少。二语课堂中学生所参与的学习活动,无论是口头或是书面的,都是对目的语的某种操作——接受或产出;而且也会有某种侧重——形式或意义。因此对二语课堂中的“活动”进行分析,有助于我们理解和评判二语课堂作为语言学习环境和资源的性质和特征。这种理解能够帮助教师对课堂活动的理性选择。本研究的目的在于通过对课堂活动进行深入细致的描述,了解二语课堂的教学现状,希望对课堂活动实施者和有关教学者有所启发。研究问题包括:1)课堂活动中有哪些输入和输出活动?2)输入和输出活动比例如何?是否有一定平衡?3)是否有形式注意、意义注意活动或两类之间的任何活动?分配比例如何?4)在形式注意活动中,最关注的是何语言形式?研究的数据来源主要是课堂观察。研究者观察并实录了某高职院校的八节英语课;对录音加以文字转写后,围绕以下方面进行分析:1)课堂上输入活动和输出活动比例,;2)关注语言形式的活动和关注语言意义的活动之比例;,3)形式与意义有机融合的活动的比例。研究结果如下:首先,在输入—输出维度上,输入活动所占课堂时间比例明显高于输出活动所占比例,分别为68%和25%;输入活动的形式有:听录音,默读课文,教师讲授;输出活动主要是教师控制下的问答形式和做巩固练习的形式。第二,在形式—意义维度上,课堂活动主要偏重于关注语言形式的活动,没有提供任何以意义为主导的活动;第三,没有将形式与意义有机融合的活动;第四,关注形式的活动中主要以关注词义为主。以上研究发现对教学实践具有一定的启示意义:教师作为课堂活动的计划和组织者应平衡输入活动和输出活动,针对高职学生语言技能的要求适当增加输出活动的比例;平衡形式关注活动和意义活动,增加意义为主导的课堂活动。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis is a descriptive research on EFL classroom activities in a vocational college as they actually happened. "An activity is described as a task that has been selected to achieve a particular teaching/learning goal." (Richards and Lockhart 2000: pl61) "Activities" in the present study refers to what the students are doing in L2 class to achieve the goal of learning English.The relative importance of input and output is a key issue in the field of second language acquisition, which has caused much discussion and debate. Input Hypothesis claims that comprehensible input can facilitate acquisition and that there are positive correlations between the amount of reading reported and proficiency. Input must be made comprehensible either by modifying it or by means of contextual props.Output Hypothesis proposes that output can facilitate L2 accuracy because of three functions: noticing/triggering, hypothesis testing and metalinguistic reflection. With the development of SLA theory, researchers point that successful instructed language learning requires both extensive L2 input and opportunities for output.J. Harmer (1983) put forward "a balanced activities approach", emphasizing the balanced activities between roughly-tuned input and communicative activities.With the development of classroom research, research on grammar teaching has extended to the one on focus-on-form and focus-on meaning. Theories of second language acquisition have laid a solid foundation of classroom research. Overseas research on formal instruction has been carried out since 1990s but few have been done in China, especially in vocational colleges.Based on Input Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis and some theories about form-focused instructions, the study categorizes the EFL classroom activities into such types as input activities, output activities on the one hand; and focus-on-forms activities, focus-on-form activities and focus-on-meaning activities, on the other hand. Analysis on these activities helps us understand and evaluate the nature and characteristics of L2 classroom, the context and resources of second language learning. It can also assist the teachers to make wiser choices of classroom activities. To understand teaching and learning context of L2 classroom in vocational college, the researcher explores the situation of classroom activities. The research questions include:1) What kinds of input activities (IA) and output activities (OA) are there in class?2) What percentages do input activities (IA) and output activities (OA) account for in the entire amount respectively? Is there any balance?3) Are there focus-on-forms activities (FFSA), focus-on-form (FFA) or focus-on-meaning activities (FMA)? What percentage do they account for respectively?4) What particular types of form do teachers and learners focus on in FFSA and FFA?The researcher collects data from observation. Eight English classed were observed with audio-recording and then transcribed and analyzed. The major findings include:First, input activities take up more of class time(68%) than output activities do,(25%). The input activities involved listening to the recording, reading the text, teachers’ presentation. The interaction in input activities is not very high and most of interactions are in teacher-to-all-learner pattern. The limited output activities were confined to teacher-initiated question-answer practice and some written exercises.Second, nearly all of the class time is occupied by focus-on-forms activities including: grammar explanation, word usage learning, and pronunciation correction and sentence translation. No typical meaning-focused output activities such as free talk and group discussions were observed.Third, teachers and learners mainly focused their attention on lexical forms in FFSA.The present study can illuminate pedagogy, that is, teachers, as the managers of the classes, can organize activities that keep input and output activities in balance. Learners should be engaged in focus-on-meaning activities, performing both oral and written tasks. Teachers should increase output activities focused predominately on meaning.更多还原