文理科院校英语专业阅读课堂教学实践比较研究
|
摘要
随着我国社会、经济、科技和文化的快速发展,以及全球一体化进程的不断加快,中国对外交流合作日益频繁,社会对外语人才的需求也呈多元化趋势。改革开放以来,除了外语院校、综合院校和师范院校的外语专业外,多数理工科院校也相继设置了外语专业(主要是英语专业)。本文所探究的是理工院校英语专业作为高校开设英语专业的一个类别,它的英语课堂教学特点以及与其它文科类院校英语专业课堂教学是否存在差异。借助东北师范大学外语学院研制的“课堂观察系统(NENU Pedagogy Coding Scheme, NENUPCS)”,从课段、课堂话语类型、语言教学焦点、学生语言技能和学生话语产出五个方面来观察和比较理工院校和文科院校英语专业阅读课课堂教学的特点及异同,旨在为英语专业的课堂教学改革提供参考和借鉴。
本文主要以克拉申的可理解输入理论,迈克郎的互动假说,斯万的输出假说为理论框架,选取SPCS中的五个观察项,对来自于两所不同类型大学的8位英语专业老师,总计96学时的阅读课堂进行观察实录。结果发现文理科院校的英语专业教学课堂有着各自的特点和异同:(1)总体上北华大学(以下简称“BHU”)和东北电力大学(以下简称“NEDU”)的课堂教学还是采用传统的以教师为主的教学方式,课堂上师生、生生的互动时间相对较少;课堂上教师话语约百分之八十以上与课堂教学相关,所有观察期间的课堂均无课堂规约话语。教师的“独白讲授”、“核实性问答”均占课堂教学时间一半以上。(2)从知识架构分析,两所学校的专业教师均注重语言功能多于语言形式。对篇章内容与结构进行分析所占的比重较大,而语言教学方面的时间相对较少。在课堂观察期间两个学校的阅读课堂基本上没有语言使用和利用交际策略的活动。两所学校均注重口语产出;(3)比较两所院校,NEDU更趋于教师为主导的传统课堂教学模式;虽然侧重于语言功能,但在语音、单词和语法等语言形式方面所用时间也明显高于BHU;(4)从学生话语产出角度,BHU学生倾向于一个人给出连惯的、完整句子的答案,而NEDU学生更喜欢以集体方式用断续的词或词组来回答,而且由于NEDU教师话语主导了师生间的互动,学生回答多属于选择或补充;(5)由于两所院校英语专业学生的语言技能有所差别,导致在相同的教学大纲、教材和课程的前提下,同一年级的NEDU学生在课堂上表现比BHU学生缺少自信。
With the rapid development of society, economy, science and culture and the increasing process of globalization, demands for foreign language learners has become multiple as a result of frequent exchanges and cooperation in these fields between China and other countries. In order to meet the multiple demands of the foreign language professionals, universities have greatly increased their enrolment of university students majoring in English, especially many universities of science and technology which used to recruit only students of science or technological majors have begun to cater for students of English majors. This study, aims to examine pedagogical practices of English-major reading classrooms in the university of liberal arts and the university of science and engineering, and discover similarities and differences in terms of phases, types of talk, instructional focus, skill focus and student products. The classroom observation scheme NENU Pedagogy Coding Scheme (NENUPCS) was adopted in this study and hope the results of this study will be helpful for the future English-major teaching reform.
Taking Krashen’s comprehensible input, Swain’s output hypothesis and Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis are used as theoretical bases, this study observed reading classrooms of eight English-major teachers from two different types of universities, and totally ninety six periods were video recorded. The results reveal the respective teaching features of the two schools, and the similarities and differences in terms of the five categories in NENUPCS.
Firstly, generally speaking, the English-major reading classrooms of BHU and NEDU are traditional and teacher-centered, with little teacher-student and student-student activities in classroom time. More than eighty percent of teachers’talk is curriculum-related, and no regulatory talk is observed. The whole class lecture, IRF account for half of the teaching time. Secondly, from the point of knowledge classification, teachers from the two schools all pay much attention to the text content and language form. Large amount of time is spent in text comprehension and structural analysis. Of all the observed data, there are no activities related to real language use and learning strategies. Both schools lay importance on oral output and no written outputs are found in the classroom time. Thirdly, NEDU classrooms appear to be more teacher-centered and teachers devote more time to language form, like pronunciation, words and grammar explanation, and so on. Fourthly, in terms of student products, BHU students tend to give more sustained and complete answers individually, while NEDU students are willing to answer questions together, usually several words or phrases with teacher’s help. Fifthly, as the language level of English-major students from two different types of universities are quite different, NEDU students usually performed passively and less confident when they share the same teaching syllabus and textbooks with BHU students.
本文主要以克拉申的可理解输入理论,迈克郎的互动假说,斯万的输出假说为理论框架,选取SPCS中的五个观察项,对来自于两所不同类型大学的8位英语专业老师,总计96学时的阅读课堂进行观察实录。结果发现文理科院校的英语专业教学课堂有着各自的特点和异同:(1)总体上北华大学(以下简称“BHU”)和东北电力大学(以下简称“NEDU”)的课堂教学还是采用传统的以教师为主的教学方式,课堂上师生、生生的互动时间相对较少;课堂上教师话语约百分之八十以上与课堂教学相关,所有观察期间的课堂均无课堂规约话语。教师的“独白讲授”、“核实性问答”均占课堂教学时间一半以上。(2)从知识架构分析,两所学校的专业教师均注重语言功能多于语言形式。对篇章内容与结构进行分析所占的比重较大,而语言教学方面的时间相对较少。在课堂观察期间两个学校的阅读课堂基本上没有语言使用和利用交际策略的活动。两所学校均注重口语产出;(3)比较两所院校,NEDU更趋于教师为主导的传统课堂教学模式;虽然侧重于语言功能,但在语音、单词和语法等语言形式方面所用时间也明显高于BHU;(4)从学生话语产出角度,BHU学生倾向于一个人给出连惯的、完整句子的答案,而NEDU学生更喜欢以集体方式用断续的词或词组来回答,而且由于NEDU教师话语主导了师生间的互动,学生回答多属于选择或补充;(5)由于两所院校英语专业学生的语言技能有所差别,导致在相同的教学大纲、教材和课程的前提下,同一年级的NEDU学生在课堂上表现比BHU学生缺少自信。
With the rapid development of society, economy, science and culture and the increasing process of globalization, demands for foreign language learners has become multiple as a result of frequent exchanges and cooperation in these fields between China and other countries. In order to meet the multiple demands of the foreign language professionals, universities have greatly increased their enrolment of university students majoring in English, especially many universities of science and technology which used to recruit only students of science or technological majors have begun to cater for students of English majors. This study, aims to examine pedagogical practices of English-major reading classrooms in the university of liberal arts and the university of science and engineering, and discover similarities and differences in terms of phases, types of talk, instructional focus, skill focus and student products. The classroom observation scheme NENU Pedagogy Coding Scheme (NENUPCS) was adopted in this study and hope the results of this study will be helpful for the future English-major teaching reform.
Taking Krashen’s comprehensible input, Swain’s output hypothesis and Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis are used as theoretical bases, this study observed reading classrooms of eight English-major teachers from two different types of universities, and totally ninety six periods were video recorded. The results reveal the respective teaching features of the two schools, and the similarities and differences in terms of the five categories in NENUPCS.
Firstly, generally speaking, the English-major reading classrooms of BHU and NEDU are traditional and teacher-centered, with little teacher-student and student-student activities in classroom time. More than eighty percent of teachers’talk is curriculum-related, and no regulatory talk is observed. The whole class lecture, IRF account for half of the teaching time. Secondly, from the point of knowledge classification, teachers from the two schools all pay much attention to the text content and language form. Large amount of time is spent in text comprehension and structural analysis. Of all the observed data, there are no activities related to real language use and learning strategies. Both schools lay importance on oral output and no written outputs are found in the classroom time. Thirdly, NEDU classrooms appear to be more teacher-centered and teachers devote more time to language form, like pronunciation, words and grammar explanation, and so on. Fourthly, in terms of student products, BHU students tend to give more sustained and complete answers individually, while NEDU students are willing to answer questions together, usually several words or phrases with teacher’s help. Fifthly, as the language level of English-major students from two different types of universities are quite different, NEDU students usually performed passively and less confident when they share the same teaching syllabus and textbooks with BHU students.
引文
[1]Allwright, D. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 156-171.
[2]Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.
[3]Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Focus on language classroom. London: Cambridge University Press.
[4]Barnes, D., Britton, J. & Rosen, H. (Eds.). (1969). Language, the learner and the school. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[5]Bellack, A. (1966). The Language of the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
[6]Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. J., & Smith. F. L. (1966). The Language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
[7]Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
[8]Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9]Fanselow, J. F. (1977). Beyond rashomon-conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 17-39.
[10]Flanders, N. A. (1960). Interaction analysis in the classroom: A manual for observers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[11]Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective in the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.
[12]Gebhard, J. G., & Oprandy, R. (2005). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and practices. London: Cambridge University Press.
[13]Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.). Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[14]Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 453-484.
[15]Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London & New York: Longman.
[16]Liu, Y. B., Zhao, S. H., & Goh, H. H. (2007). Chinese language education research in Singapore: Making a case for alternative research orientation. In V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, &Y. B. Liu (Eds.), Language, capital, culture: Critical studies of language and education in Singapore (pp. 133–153). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publisher.
[17]Liu, Y. B., Zhao, S. H., & Zhang, D. B. (2006). Chinese language instruction in Singapore primary school classrooms: A study of pedagogical practices. Retrieved January 23, 2011 from http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/253/1/Core_ResRpt06_LiuZhaoZhang.pdf.
[18]Liu, Y. B., Zhao, S. H., Gan, S. W., Toh, H. B., & Zhao, C. S. (2007). A comparative study of experimental and control classrooms in Singapore (Tech. Rep.). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
[19]Long, M, Adams, L., McLean, M., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words–verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In J. Fanselow, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 153-170). Washington, DC: TESOL.
[20]Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
[21]Long, M. H., Adams, L., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In R. Crymes & J. Fanselow (Eds.), On TESOL '76. Washington, DC: TESOL.
[22]Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin A., & Freebody, P. (2004). A coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse in Singapore schools. (CRPP Technical Paper). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
[23]Moskowitz, G. (1968). The effects of training foreign language teachers in interaction analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 218-235.
[24]Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-759.
[25]Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[26]Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
[27]White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The Input Hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
[28]White, L., & Lightbown, P. (1984). Asking and answering in ESL classes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 228-224.
[29]Yule, G. & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539-556.
[30]戴炜栋,蔡君梅.国内汉英中介语研究述评[J].外语研究, 2006.(1):35-40.
[31]胡青球,等.大学英语教师课堂提问模式调查分析[J].外语界.2004,(6):24-29.
[32]胡青球.中外教师英语课堂话语对比分析—个案研究[J].国外语言学,2007,(1):32-36.
[33]胡文仲.交际教学法初探[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报).1982,(5):17-24.
[34]胡文仲.Language and Communication[J].外语教学与研究.1984,(2):80-82.
[35]李筱菊.浅谈外语教学的交际教学法[J].现代外语.1984,(1):18-23
[36]梁文霞.英语课堂学生小组对话中的话语共建[J],解放军外国语学院学报.2007,30 (1):44-48.
[37]林琼.教师话语与第二语言习得[J].四川外语学院学报. 2001,17 (5):110-111.
[38]刘永兵.西方二语习得理论研究的两种认识论取向—对我国外语研究的启示[J].东北师大学报.2010,(4):61-67.
[39]刘永兵,张会平.基于语料库的中学英语课堂的规约话语研究[J].外语与外语教学.2010,(4):14-18.
[40]李茶,刘永兵.东北地区中学英语课堂教学因素的城乡差异研究[J].中小学英语教学与研究.2010,(8):11-14.
[41]刘永兵,王冰,林正军.英语课堂教学量化研究工具的构想与设计[J].中国外语. 2009,30(3):63-69.
[42]林正军,刘永兵,王冰.国内英语课堂话语研究的现状与展望[J].西安外国语大学学报.2009, (1):102-106.
[43]刘永兵,王冰.国外课堂研究的两种取向[J].中小学英语教学与研究. 2008,(8):5-9.
[44]杨慧琴.论TT对ELT的影响—《新编大学英语》课堂教学探索[J].外语与外语教学.2001,(12):34-35.
[45]姚佩芝.试论外语教学话语的学科个性特征[J].外语与外语教学. 2004,(7):59-61.
[2]Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.
[3]Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Focus on language classroom. London: Cambridge University Press.
[4]Barnes, D., Britton, J. & Rosen, H. (Eds.). (1969). Language, the learner and the school. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[5]Bellack, A. (1966). The Language of the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
[6]Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. J., & Smith. F. L. (1966). The Language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
[7]Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
[8]Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9]Fanselow, J. F. (1977). Beyond rashomon-conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly, 11, 17-39.
[10]Flanders, N. A. (1960). Interaction analysis in the classroom: A manual for observers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[11]Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective in the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23.
[12]Gebhard, J. G., & Oprandy, R. (2005). Language teaching awareness: A guide to exploring beliefs and practices. London: Cambridge University Press.
[13]Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.). Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[14]Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 453-484.
[15]Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London & New York: Longman.
[16]Liu, Y. B., Zhao, S. H., & Goh, H. H. (2007). Chinese language education research in Singapore: Making a case for alternative research orientation. In V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, &Y. B. Liu (Eds.), Language, capital, culture: Critical studies of language and education in Singapore (pp. 133–153). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publisher.
[17]Liu, Y. B., Zhao, S. H., & Zhang, D. B. (2006). Chinese language instruction in Singapore primary school classrooms: A study of pedagogical practices. Retrieved January 23, 2011 from http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/bitstream/10497/253/1/Core_ResRpt06_LiuZhaoZhang.pdf.
[18]Liu, Y. B., Zhao, S. H., Gan, S. W., Toh, H. B., & Zhao, C. S. (2007). A comparative study of experimental and control classrooms in Singapore (Tech. Rep.). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
[19]Long, M, Adams, L., McLean, M., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words–verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In J. Fanselow, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '76 (pp. 153-170). Washington, DC: TESOL.
[20]Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
[21]Long, M. H., Adams, L., & Castanos, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In R. Crymes & J. Fanselow (Eds.), On TESOL '76. Washington, DC: TESOL.
[22]Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin A., & Freebody, P. (2004). A coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse in Singapore schools. (CRPP Technical Paper). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
[23]Moskowitz, G. (1968). The effects of training foreign language teachers in interaction analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 218-235.
[24]Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-759.
[25]Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[26]Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
[27]White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The Input Hypothesis and the development of second-language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
[28]White, L., & Lightbown, P. (1984). Asking and answering in ESL classes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 228-224.
[29]Yule, G. & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539-556.
[30]戴炜栋,蔡君梅.国内汉英中介语研究述评[J].外语研究, 2006.(1):35-40.
[31]胡青球,等.大学英语教师课堂提问模式调查分析[J].外语界.2004,(6):24-29.
[32]胡青球.中外教师英语课堂话语对比分析—个案研究[J].国外语言学,2007,(1):32-36.
[33]胡文仲.交际教学法初探[J].外国语(上海外国语大学学报).1982,(5):17-24.
[34]胡文仲.Language and Communication[J].外语教学与研究.1984,(2):80-82.
[35]李筱菊.浅谈外语教学的交际教学法[J].现代外语.1984,(1):18-23
[36]梁文霞.英语课堂学生小组对话中的话语共建[J],解放军外国语学院学报.2007,30 (1):44-48.
[37]林琼.教师话语与第二语言习得[J].四川外语学院学报. 2001,17 (5):110-111.
[38]刘永兵.西方二语习得理论研究的两种认识论取向—对我国外语研究的启示[J].东北师大学报.2010,(4):61-67.
[39]刘永兵,张会平.基于语料库的中学英语课堂的规约话语研究[J].外语与外语教学.2010,(4):14-18.
[40]李茶,刘永兵.东北地区中学英语课堂教学因素的城乡差异研究[J].中小学英语教学与研究.2010,(8):11-14.
[41]刘永兵,王冰,林正军.英语课堂教学量化研究工具的构想与设计[J].中国外语. 2009,30(3):63-69.
[42]林正军,刘永兵,王冰.国内英语课堂话语研究的现状与展望[J].西安外国语大学学报.2009, (1):102-106.
[43]刘永兵,王冰.国外课堂研究的两种取向[J].中小学英语教学与研究. 2008,(8):5-9.
[44]杨慧琴.论TT对ELT的影响—《新编大学英语》课堂教学探索[J].外语与外语教学.2001,(12):34-35.
[45]姚佩芝.试论外语教学话语的学科个性特征[J].外语与外语教学. 2004,(7):59-61.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |