On Improving the Effectiveness of English Classroom Questioning in Senior High School英语专业毕业论文

《On Improving the Effectiveness of English Classroom Questioning in Senior High School英语专业毕业论文》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《On Improving the Effectiveness of English Classroom Questioning in Senior High School英语专业毕业论文（31页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、On Improving the Effectiveness of English Classroom Questioning in Senior High School 英语专业毕业论文 存档编号_师范学院学士学位论文On Improving the Effectiveness of English Classroom Questioning in Senior High School教学学院 外国语学院届 别 2011 届专 业 英 语学 号 070402205姓 名 邱 霞指导教师 刘 光 胜完成日期 2011年5月ContentAbstract1Key words11 Introduc

2、tion of Classroom Questioning21.1 Background21.2 Significance31.3 Organization32 Literature Review of Classroom Questioning42.1 Theoretical basis42.2 Research abroad72.3 Research at home93 Teachers questioning problems in senior high school103.1 More display questions than referential questions103.2

3、 Improper control of wait-time113.3 Inappropriate distribution of questions113.4 Lack of feedback123.5 Insufficient preparation124 Main factors causing questioning problems134.1 Learning environment134.2 Cultural influence134.3 Teachers factor144.4 Students factor155 Strategies of Improving the Clas

4、sroom Questionings Effectiveness155.1 What155.2 When165.3 Who175.4 How176 Conclusion19Bibliography20AbstractClassroom questioning is an important part of classroom teaching, as well as a major method to reach teaching target. Currently, New English Curriculum Standard has set high demand for classro

5、om questioning, but there are many serious problems related to classroom questioning, which we cant ignored any more. Based on a lot of relative materials in this area and the observation of English classroom teaching in senior high school, this thesis from five aspects lists the main problems of cl

6、assroom questioning in senior high school, finding out four factors leading to these problems and bringing up some strategies to improve the effectiveness of classroom questioning in the end.Key words: Classroom questioning, Effectiveness, Senior High SchoolOn Improving the Effectiveness of English

7、Classroom Questioning in Senior High School07 Ben 6 QIU Xia 0704022051 Introduction of Classroom Questioning1.1 BackgroundIn classroom, classroom questioning is an effective method and an essential component in classroom teaching, as well as a useful way both for teachers and students. As it shown,

8、classroom questioning is more used in English subject rather than any other one, either in terms of person-time or questioning-frequency. Moreover, studies relating to ESL English as second language teaching have also pointed out the necessity for teachers questioning. In second English classrooms,

9、where learners often do not have a great number of tools, teachers questions provide necessary stepping stone to communicate. Therefore, it is of profound significance to improve the effectiveness of classroom questioning, and to cultivate the students linguistic ability of comprehensive application

10、. However, with the continuous reform on English teaching as well as the special demand of English subject itself, new problems and challenges for classroom questioning are arising. Thus, it is important to deal with questioning of teaching practice constantly, scientifically and tactfully.1.2 Signi

11、ficance1.2.1 Academic valueIn recent years, more and more experts pay close attention to classroom questioning, but most of them are discussing the types of classroom questions, the principles and strategies to improve the efficiency of it in theory. While under the reform on English teaching, the r

12、esearch on the new demands for senior high school classroom questioning is rare. On the other hand, many distinguished high school teachers give many detail methods and strategies according to their own teaching experience, but these methods and strategies lack important theoretical basis. Besides,

13、many research methods traditionally through questionnaire and interview are full of limitation. Only observing the classroom teaching, can it get closer to the actuality of classroom questioning and find out problems, then analyze and summarize to get corresponding strategies. 1.2.2 Pragmatic valueT

14、he greatness of questioning in English subject is more predominant than any other subject. However, because of lacking enough research and professional cultivation, teachers cant take an appropriate method to ask questions. We can often see a teacher asks question for question sake or ceremonially f

15、orces to ask questions, which will dampen students vigor and initiative and thus affect the quality of class teaching. Therefore, its the demand of practice to improve and enhance the effectiveness of teachers classroom questioning. 1.3 OrganizationThe study comprises six chapters. Chapter one intro

16、duces background and significance of the study. Chapter two is literature review, including theoretical basis, such as, Krashens input hypothesis, Swans Output Hypothesis and Longs Interaction Hypothesis and the relevant research both at home and abroad. Chapter three lists the problems that exist i

17、n the classroom questioning of senior high school. Chapter four explores the factors that lead to the related problems. Chapter five illustrates the strategies to improve the efficiency of classroom questioning. Chapter six makes a conclusion and the limitation of the study.2 Literature Review of Cl

18、assroom Questioning2.1 Theoretical basisClassroom questioning is an important part of classroom teaching and the main approach for teachers to interact with students. The interaction between teachers and learners in classroom goes on through learners receiving input mainly from teachers and producin

19、g output by themselves, which is hypothesized to aid language learning. And this is consistent with the Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. 2.1.1 Krashens Input HypothesisEllis claimed, “Input is the language that is addressed to the L2（Second Language）learner either by a

20、 native speaker or by another L2 learner.” In the late 20th century, Krashen 1985 puts forward what he calls the Input Hypothesis. He indicates that development from a learners current stage level of competence, i, to the next stage, i+1, which is a little bit beyond his or her current level of comp

21、etence, is achieved through the learner comprehending language. The gap between the learners i and i+1 is bridged by information drawn from the situation and from the learners previous experience. Krashen believes comprehension is necessary in order for the input to became intake. He stresses that t

22、he learners focus of attention during this process is not on the new forms themselves, but on the message being communicated. It maintains that a second language is acquired through processing comprehensible input, i.e language that is heard or read and understood. Besides, Krashen also states that

23、the best language input has four basic conditions. First, language input should be of large amount. Second, language input should be comprehensible. The purpose is to ensure the learning interest of second language learner. Third, language input should be interesting and closely related to the learn

24、ers life and study. Fourth, the language input should not emphasize too much on grammar. 2.1.2 Swans Output HypothesisOn the basis of long years of research with French immersion programs in Canada, Swain 1985 has put forward Output Hypothesis that emphasizes the opportunities to “push” the students

25、 to produce language. The Output Hypothesis has claimed that “comprehensible input is an important factor in language acquisition, but not a sufficient one; learners need the opportunity for meaningful use of their linguistic resources to achieve full grammatical competence in the target language” S

26、wain, 1985 .Swain defines three functions of output: 1. Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. 2. Hypothesis-testing function: When learners say something

27、 there is always a hypothesis underlying e.g. about grammar. By uttering something the learners test this hypothesis and receive feedback from an interlocutor. This feedback enables them, if necessary, to reprocess their hypothesis. 3. Metalinguistic function: Learners reflect about the language the

28、y learn and hereby the output enables them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge. In classroom environment during the interaction of questioning-answering process, students receive input and produce output. According to the Output Hypothesis, more opportunities to utter the target language

29、 should be created and provided by teachers to learners, aiding them to utilize the interactional negotiation, for the purpose of promoting their interlanguage development.2.1.3 Longs Interaction Hypothesis “Interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or mor

30、e people resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other” Brown, 1994:159 . Scholars has argued a lot about the importance of interaction in L2 classroom, such as Allwright 1984 and Long 1983 etc. And Long thought that not only linguistic modifications but some of the modifications of speech help or

31、even are of more importance for comprehension. He launched a series of studies that illustrated the relationship between interaction and learners linguistic needs, which is the base of Interaction Hypothesis. The Interaction Hypothesis proposed by Long is considered to be complementary to the Compre

32、hensible Input Hypothesis, which is challenged by some researchers for its negligence of the importance of output and/or interaction. The Interaction Hypothesis admits the importance of comprehensible input and emphasizes the function of meaning negotiation to language acquisition. It is claimed tha

33、t it is a most effective way to imize the students acquisition when the comprehensible input is modified through the negotiation of meaning conversational adjustment or interactional modification. Long believes that “two-way communication” has more advantage in improving SLA Second Language Acquisit

34、ion than “one-way communication”. Because during “two-way communication”, meaning negotiation and interactional modification between speakers can be used to construct the common understanding on the ongoing discourse, aiding to improve the compensability of input Nunan, 1999 . Allwright 1984 also cl

35、aimed that the comprehensible input has to be combined with interaction in order to improve language acquisition. When communication breakdowns happen, efforts are often made by interlocutors to modify foregoing utterances by means of a variety of strategies so as to improve comprehensibility. These

36、 strategies are commonly referred to conversational modification devices or interactional modification devices. Long describes fifteen devices for the modification of interaction. Among these, the commonly used devices are comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests. And the

37、se devices are used statistically significantly more often in native speakernon-native speaker conversations than the native speakernative speaker conversations Long, 1983 . According to Ellis, confirmation checks and clarification requests are often used in the natural environment to conquer the di

38、fficulties occurred in the communicative process. Since “language use can be regarded as essentially a matter of the negotiation of meaning” Widdowson, 1999:104-105 , language use in L2 classroom then can be viewed as the interactional negotiation between teachers and learners. And both sides should

39、 be aware of the importance of employing these devices in the classroom interaction, on one hand, to make the teachers utterance as input more comprehensible, and on the other hand improve the understandable output of the learners.2.2 Research abroad2.2.1 Questions typesMany researches on questionin

40、g is involved with developing taxonomies to describe types. In general, there are two popular ways of classifying questions.2.2.1.1 Open & Closed questionsBarnes 1969 categorized questions into open and closed questions. An open question refers to a question with no definite answers from the respond

41、er. The responder can provide any answer that seems appropriate. A closed question, in contrast, is likely to be regarded as clearly right or wrong and often teachers will persist in their questioning until they obtain the response they are seeking. For example, “How many seasons in a year?” is a cl

42、osed question, while “whats you favorite season?” is an open question.2.2.1.2 Display & Referential questionLong and Sato 1983 divided questions into display questions and referential questions. Display questions refer to those to the questioner has the answer in mind. In other words, display questi

43、ons are used to test the leaner by eliciting already known information. Referential questions, on the other hand, are those questions to which the questioner does not have a definite answer in mind. These questions are used to seek information from the responder. For example, a teacher has a pen in

44、her hand, she asks her students “whats this? Is this a pen?” This question is a display question. Then she continues, “What do you think of the pen?” This is a referential question.2.2.2 Questioning strategiesStrategies are concrete and practical actions that people perform to accomplish a certain t

45、ask. And questioning strategies refer to practical actions used in teacher questioning. Teachers adopt questioning strategies to enable classroom questioning effective.Questioning strategies are of great importance in L2 class. With questioning strategies, teachers pose questions skillfully or artfu

46、lly so as to fulfill some teaching aims effectively and successfully.The classification of questioning strategy is various. For example, Hu 2004 classified questioning strategies into six, and they are probing, chaining, repetition, simplification, rephrasing and decomposition.2.2.3 Wait timeEllis 1

47、999:589 defined wait-time as the length of time the teacher is prepared to wait for an answer. And some other scholars claimed that “wait-time” referred to the length of time elapsing between the initiation of teachers question and the respond of students and between the student answers and the foll

48、owing teacher speech act Rowe, 1986 .Rowe 1986 found that teachers wait only approximately one second after asking a question before calling on a student and one second after a student responds before the teachers intervened by probing the responses, rephrasing the question, redirecting to another s

49、tudent, or providing the answer. Nunan 1991 summarizes the effects of increasing wait time observed in studies. For example, when wait-time is increased, the student responses will be lengthened; there will be more volunteers to respond to the question and the answer will be more appropriate and mor

50、e speculative; the failures to answer questions will decrease.2.2.4 Teacher feedbackFeedback, according to Brown 1988 , means“allowing learners to experience the effect of what they produce as a guide in their future efforts”. Brown believes that Feedback must be more than encouragement, for “empty

51、and automatic encouragement is pointless”.Feedback plays an important role during teaching. Feedback may not only to let learners know how well they have performed but also to increase the learners motivation and make the classroom climate more supportive. Long 1983 indicates that the feedback that

52、instructors give to learners in the classroom makes a significant influence on the speed and success with learners development of interlanguage.Feedback can be grouped into different items, such as, affective and cognitive feedback; content and form feedback. While the most frequently used category

53、is the classification of positive feedback and negative feedback. 2.3 Research at homeIn China, the history of questioning research can date back to Confucius the educator during the Spring & Autumn Period and the Warring States. In the Analects of Confucius, he pointed out that the tutor should not

54、 to enlighten the student, until he has turn the problem over in his mind and arrive a level of obtaining some thoughts but can not speak out the standard answer, the phrase means in teaching process the teacher ought to get the right point to conduct the student, neither too fast nor too slow.Most

55、of the questioning studies in China are theories based dealing with question types, questioning strategies and skills. Classroom questioning theories have been introduced by some scholars, such as Jin Chuanbao 1997 ，Wang Yinquan 2000 and Wang Duqin 2002 .Zhou Xing & Zhou Yun 2002 researched the char

56、acteristics of question types and feedback of four English teachers and their students concluding that more referential questions were posed than display questions and there were more positive feedback employed. Xu Feng 2003 focused on question types and wait-time of six English teachers from a univ

57、ersity in Northwest China and their students concluding that the more questions are posed the more referential questions posed; the wait-time was insufficient; 30%students posed grammatical, lexical and phonetic questions.In the Art of Classroom Questioning, Liu Xianguo compare classroom questioning

58、 as a teaching art. He mainly works on the classroom questioning in Chinese and Math in primary school. He makes a summary of the function of classroom questioning. They are as follows, to arouse students interest; to promote the development of students thinking; to control the teaching process; to

59、arouse the unconscious attention; to conduct students thinking; etc. He also puts forward “five priorities”: first questioning then roll-call; first discussion then conclusion-make; first students then teachers; first encouraging then error-correct. 3 Teachers questioning problems in senior high sch

60、ool3.1 More display questions than referential questionsAccording to Long and Sato, they categorized questions into display and referential questions. From the observance of English classroom teaching in senior high school, it shows that there are more display questions than referential questions an

61、d most of questions aim at checking students understanding and memorizing. Example 1. Elias story （New Senior English for China Students Book 1 unit 5）paragraph 1 Q1: Look at the title, can you guess who is the hero of the text?Q2: How many paragraphs of the text?Q3: Where did Elias work?Q4: At that

62、 time, what did Nelson Mandela do? What kind of a person is he? Why did Elias visit him?Q5: Whats the topic sentence of paragraph 1?In this paragraph, according to the content, the teacher asked five questions. Its easy to find all of the five questions are display questions, focusing on the student

63、s understanding of the paragraph. It seems that these questions are reasonable and reach the teaching goal. However, it cant really stimulate students imagination. In this text, Elias is a poor black worker. So the teacher can ask students to imagine his life and work condition, and guess why he vis

64、ited Mandela. These are referential questions.3.2 Improper control of wait-timeThe meaning of wait-time is two-fold. It means the length of time elapsing between the initiation of teachers question and the respond of students and between the student answers and the following teacher speech act Rowe,

65、 1986 . From the observance of English classroom teaching in senior high school, it shows that most of teachers cant control wait-time properly, either too short or long. If not given sufficient time, students cant think carefully, form their answers and organize their words. While if too long, it may affect t