(35.175.212.130) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/17 21:28
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

: 
twitterline
研究生:王雅薇
研究生(外文):Ya-Wei Wang
論文名稱:中、外籍英語教師課室互動及學生對其教學看法
論文名稱(外文):A Study on Interactional Features of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers and Students’ Perceptions in an EFL Classroom
指導教授: 指導教授: 陳淑惠博士
指導教授(外文):Shu-Hui Eileen Chen
口試委員:洪月女許炳煌
口試委員(外文):Yueh-Nu HungPing-Huang Sheu
口試日期:2011-01-25
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:兒童英語教育學系碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:133
中文關鍵詞:外師中師互動策略話語頻率用字複雜度比率教師認知學生看法
外文關鍵詞:native English speaking teachernon-native English speaking teacherinteractional featuresinput frequencytype-token ratioteacher's awarenessstudent's perceptions
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:411
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:55
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本研究採質性及量化方式探討及比較中、外籍英語教師在高低程度班級使用之課室互動策略之異同。研究對象為新北市某私立國小某班六年級學生以及中外籍英語教師各一名。研究者對此班(含較高程度及較低程度兩組各15人)進行兩個月的上課錄影。並將收集來的資料先進行謄寫及編碼,然後以CLAN程式進行語料分析。此外,學生需填寫一份內容關於中、外籍英語教師教學的問卷,而兩名老師則是分別接受關於課式互動策略使用於較高級數與較低級數的訪談。
量化資料的結果顯示中、外籍教師的確在課室互動策略的使用上有某些異
同。兩者在自我重複(self repetitions)、其他重複(other repetitions)以及延伸(expansions)等策略使用上,均有隨學生英語能力增加而增加互動話語的現象;然而,兩者在確認(confirmation checks)、理解性確認(comprehension checks) 、以及澄清式問題(clarification requests)等策略中則是隨學生程度增加而有減少互動話語的現象。
以互動策略中語詞的複雜度而言,結果指出外籍教師會隨著學生英文程度增
加而加深與學生互動時語言的複雜度;然而,中師則無論在較高或較低級數,其均保持著相當高的語言複雜度,甚至其在低級數的語言複雜度表現幾乎都是高過另一名外師的。
從問卷結果看來,較高程度學生對中外籍教師的教學並無明顯偏好,然而較
低程度學生則較偏好中籍教師的教學。且其認為中籍英語教師跟學生的互動關係較良好,並特別指出中籍教師在能夠以中文解釋難懂的文法方面對學生很有助益。教師訪談亦顯示此兩名中、外籍英語教師對課室互動策略的想法的確會影響其在教不同程度班級時話語量的多寡以及話語的複雜度。本研究最後提出在英語教學上進一步的相關建議,以供未來研究做為參考。

The purpose of this study is to examine the use of interaction features by a native English speaking teacher and a non-native English speaking teacher in higher-proficiency and lower proficiency classes of sixth graders in New Taipei City, and to compare their similarities and differences through quantitative and qualitative methods. The researcher video-recorded class activities of the two classes during the period of 2 months with two cameras. The data collected were then transcribed and encoded for the computing program, CLAN. In addition, all the students of both groups were asked to fill out a questionnaire to indicate their perceptions of the class taught by the NEST and the NNEST. Meanwhile, the NEST and the NNEST had an interview to report their self-awareness on the use of interactional features in both
higher and lower proficiency classes.
The quantitative result showed some similarities and differences to some extent in the use of interactional features between the NEST and the NNEST. In terms of token occurrences for both the NEST and the NNEST, there was an increase in the use of “self repetitions”, “other repetitions”, and “expansions”, but a decrease in
“confirmation checks”, “comprehension checks”, and “clarification requests” as students’ proficiency grew. As to type-token ratio, for the NEST, it indicated that there was a general tendency towards greater variety for students with higher proficiency. However, for the NNEST, it showed that the NNEST’s TTR sustained to be quite high whether in the lower or higher proficiency group. In addition, the NNEST’s TTR in the lower proficiency group was almost all the way higher than the NEST’s.
Based on the qualitative results gained from the questionnaire, students in the higher proficiency class didn’t showed significant preference between the NEST and the NNEST. However, students in the lower proficiency preferred the NNEST’s teaching to the NEST’s. In addition, the NNEST was reported to have better relationship with their students and to be more helpful through using Mandarin
Chinese to explain grammar when necessary.
According to the interview, the NEST and the NNEST revealed their self-awareness about the use of interaction features, which were reflected in the
variations of token frequency and type-token ratio (TTR) in different proficiency groups. Pedagogical implications were drawn from the results of the present study,
with the directions for future studies suggested.

Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Background of the research………………………..……………….1
1.2 Purposes and research questions of the study…………………….............5
1.3 Significance of the study……………………………………………………7
1.4 Definition of terms………………………………………………………..7
1.5 Organization of the thesis……………………………………………10
Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………………………...13
2.1 Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers……………………13
2.1.1 NNEST’s strengths and weaknesses………………………………15
2.1.2 NEST’s strengths and weaknesses…….………………………….16
2.2 Interactional features of teacher talk………………………………..18
2.3 Studies on type-token ratio (TTR) between NESTs and NNESTs……..…25
2.4 Studies on students’ perceptions towards NESTs and NNESTs.………. 29
Chapter 3 Methodology……………………………………………………..…...33
3.1 Research framework………………………………………………………33
3.2 Participants and teaching context………………………………………..34
3.2.1 The students and teaching context………………………………….35
3.2.2 NEST’s background and work experience……...…………………36
3.2.3 NNEST’s background and work experience……………………….37
3.3 Instruments………………………………………………………………37
3.3.1 Classroom observations……………………………………………38
3.3.2 Questionnaire………………………………………………………38
3.3.3 Interviews………………………………………………………..41
3.4 Procedure……………………………………………………………41
3.5 Transcription and coding system…….……………………………..44
3.6 Data analysis………………………………………………………...47
Chapter 4 Results………………………………………………………………..49
4.1 NEST’s use of interactional features as a function of EFL students’
proficiency…………….…………………..………. ……………….……49
4.1.1 Token…………….………………………………………….……49
4.1.2 TTR …………….……………………………………………......52
4.2 NNEST’s use of interactional feature as a function of EFL students’
proficiency…………………………………….........................................544.2.1 Token………………………………………..................................54
4.2.2 TTR ……………………………………………………...............56
4.3 The comparison of the NEST’s and the NNEST’s use of interactional
features.....................................................................................................58
4.3.1 Token…………………………………………………………....58
4.3.2 TTR …………………………………………………………….61
4.4 Teacher’s self-awareness on the use of interactional features…...………64
4.5 Students’ perceptions towards the NEST and the NNEST…………...….70
Chapter 5 Discussion and conclusion………………………..…………………..79
5.1 Discussion of the main findings in this study…….…………..…………79
5.1.1 The NEST’s token frequency and TTR of interactional features.79
5.1.2 The NNEST’s token frequency and TTR of interactional features
…………………………………………………………………………..82
5.1.3 Comparison of the NEST’s and the NNEST’s interactional
features………………………………………………………………….84
5.1.4 The NEST’s and the NNEST’s self-awareness on interactional
features………………………………………………………………….86
5.1.5 Students’ perceptions towards the NEST and the NNESTs…… 88
5.2 Pedagogical implications………………………………………………...91
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future studies………………………….94
Reference……………………………………………………………………………..95
Appendices………………………………………………………………………...105
Appendix A Questionnaire for students…………..…………………………105
Appendix B Questions for interview……………..…….……………………108
Appendix C Sample transcription and results of TTR of the NEST’s interactional features in the lower proficiency group………………………….111
Appendix D Sample transcription and results of TTR of the NEST’s
interactional features in the higher proficiency group…………………..……. 118
Appendix E Sample transcription and results of TTR of the NNEST’s interactional features in the lower proficiency group………………………….124
Appendix F Sample transcription and results of TTR of the NNEST’s
interactional features in the higher proficiency group…………………………130

REFERENCES
Arva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom.
System, 28(3), 355-372.
Braine, G. (2001). The nonnative English-speaking professionals’ movement and its
research foundations. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Eds.), Learning and teaching from
experience: Perspectives on non-native English speaking professionals (pp.
9-24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Braine, G. (2005). A critical review of the research on non-native speaker English
teachers. In C. Gnutzmann & F. Intemann (Eds.), The globalisation of English
and the English language classroom (pp. 275-284). Tubingen, Germany:
Gunter Narr Verlag.
Chang,T. S. (2004). Assumptions about foreigners as factor in English learning.
Unpublished M.A. thesis. Tamkang University, Taiwan.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Chen, M. (2007). Cultivating students’ self-learning ability in college English
teaching. Foreign Language, 5(4), 21-24.
Cheung, Y. L. (2002). The attitude of university students in Hong Kong towards
native and nonnative teachers of English. Unpublished M. A. thesis. The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Clayton, M. (2000). Foreign teaching assistants’ first test: The accent. Christian
Science Monitor, 92(198), 14-20.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
Cook, V. (2000). The author response. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 329-32.
Cots, J., & Díaz, J. (2005). Constructing social relationships and linguistics
Knowledge through non-native-speaking teacher talk. In E. Llurda (Ed.),
Non-native language teachers; perceptions, challenges and contributions to the
profession (pp. 85-105). New York: Springer Science and Business Media, Inc.
Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). 'Information-gap tasks: Do they facilitate second
language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-320.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the Classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Brasil Blackwell Ltd.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen., S., (2001). Learner uptake in communicative
ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In M. Hynes & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On
TESOL ’81: Selected papers from the 15th annual conference of Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages (pp. 129-139). Washington, DC:
TESOL.
Gass, S., & E. M. Varonis. (1985). Task variation and normative/normative
negotiation of meaning in S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.): Input in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds): The
handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2007). The handbook of second language acquisition.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hatch, E. (1983) Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Henzl, V. M. (1979). Foreign talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, Mil: 159-67.
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of
nonnative Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B. (1996). World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy. The journal of aesthetic
education. Summer, 24-41.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (1999). Preparing non-native professionals in TESOL: Implications
for teacher education programs. In G. Braine (Eds.), Non-native educators
in English. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaplan, R. B. (1999). The ELT: To (NEST) or not to (NEST)? NNEST Newsletter,
1(1), 5-6.
Kliefgen, J. A. (1985) Skilled variation in a kindergarten teacher’s use of foreigner
talk. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 89-114). Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2002). University students’ perceptions of native
and non-native speaker teachers of English. Language Awareness, 11(1),
132-142.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2
written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.
Lin, H.Y. (2004). Teacher talk of native and non-native English teachers in EFL
classrooms. MA. Thesis, Ming Chuan University, Taiwan.
Liang, K. (2002). English as a second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards
non-native English speaking teachers’ accentedness. Unpublished M. A. thesis.
Thesis, California State University, LA.
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly, 33 (1), 85–102.
Long, M. (1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning, 31,
135-157.
Long, M. (1983). Native Speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied linguistics. 4(2), 126-141.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H., & C. J. Sato. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and
functions of teachers' questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.),
Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285).
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, lnterlanguage talk and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,19(2), 207-208.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). Do learners recognize implicit
negative feedback as feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(4),
471-497.
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the
incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS- NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35-66.
Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K.L. & Hartford, B. S. (2002). Perceptions of
non-native speaking teachers. Paper presented at the April 2002 36th annual
meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages; Salt Lake City,
UT.
McKay, (2002).Teaching English as an International language, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4),
340-349.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Hong Kong: MacMillan.
Mizon, S. (1981) Teacher Talk: a case study from the Bangalore/Madras
communicational ELT project. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of
Lancaster, UK.
Moussu, L. (2002). English as a second language students' reactions to nonnative
English speaking teachers. M.A. thesis. Brigham Young University, Utah, USA.
Mullock, B. (2003). What makes a good teacher? The perceptions of postgraduate
TESOL students. Prospect, 18 (3), 3–24.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pasternak, M. & Bailey, K. M. (2001). Preparing nonnative and native
English-speaking teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency. In L. D.
Kamhi-Stein (Eds.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on
non-native English speaking professionals (pp. 155-175). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1996), ELT: The native speaker’s burden. In T. Hedge & N. Whitney
(Eds.), Power, pedagogy & practice. Oxford University Press.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C., (1987). The impact of interaction on
comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737-758.
Rao, N. (1993). The Oh No! Syndrome: Understanding of the negative reactions of
undergraduates towards foreign teaching assistant. Papers presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.
Samimy, R., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or nonnative speaker:
Perceptions of "nonnative" students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Eds.), Nonnative educators in English language teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scheier, M. F. (1976). Journal of Personality. 44(4), 627-644.
Shortreed, I. M. (1993). Variation in foreigner talk input: the effects of task and
proficiency. In G. Crookes and S. M. Gass (Eds.) Tasks and language learning:
integrating theory and practice.(pp. 96-122). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Tang, C. (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 577-580.
Thomas, J. (1999). Voices from the Periphery: Non-native teachers and issues of
credibility. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language
teaching (pp. 5-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsai, C.Y. (2002). An observation of English education through the phenomenon of
the superior of English foreign teacher. MA. Thesis, Nanhua University,
Taiwan.
Urano, K. (1996). A comparative analysis of questions by two English-speaking
teachers in a kindergarten immersion program. Bulletin of the Chubu English
Language Education Society. 26, 235-242.
Urano, K. (1998). Teacher input and interaction: Native and non-native speaker
teachers in EFL classrooms. Bulletin of the Chubu English Language Education
Society, 28, 265-272
Wang, Y. H. (2007). Native and Non-Native English speaking teacher’s beliefs and
their influences on practices: A case study of elememtary collaborative teaching teachers in Hsin Chu City. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Wajnryb, R. (2004). Review of the book using the mother tongue: Making the most
of the learner’s language. EA journal, 21(2), 88-89.
Youmans, G. (1990) Measuring lexical style and competence: the type-token
vocabulary curve. Style 24, 584-599.
Zhou, J. (1999). How can a Chinese teacher of English succeed in oral English
classes? The Internet TESL Journal, 5(7), Retrieved July 27, 2007, from
http://itselj.org/ Articles/Zhou-SuccessfulTeacher.html
Zhang, Y., & Wang, J. (2009). A comparative study of NEST and NNEST classroom
interaction in Chinese context. CELEA journal, 32(2), 92-102.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 周宗賢,<清代臺灣民間的地緣組織>,《臺灣文獻》34:2,1983年6月,頁1-13。
2. 許嘉明,<祭祀圈之於居臺漢人社會的獨特性>,《中華文化復興月刊》11:6,民國67年6月,頁59-68。
3. 林春水,<白河鎮志(下)>,《南瀛文獻》第七卷,1961年12月,頁72-93。
4. 翁佳音,〈平埔族漢化史考略〉,《臺灣風物》34:1,1984年3月,頁1-27。
5. 林偉盛,<清代淡水廳的分類械鬥>,《臺灣風物》52 :2,2002年6月,頁17-56。
6. 林偉盛,<分類械鬥蔓延全臺的分析>《臺灣風物》38(3),1988年9月,頁27-51。
7. 林美容,<從祭祀圈來看臺灣民間信仰的社會面>,《臺灣風物》37:4,1987年12月,頁143-168。
8. 林春水,<吳志高與其志業>,收錄於臺南縣政府編,《南瀛雜俎》南瀛文獻叢刊第四輯,臺南縣:臺南縣政府民政局,1982年,頁85-88。
9. 林春水,<白河鎮誌(上)>,《南瀛文獻》3:3/4,1956年6月,頁58-66。
10. 石萬壽,<西拉雅平埔族的阿立祖信仰>,《國立成功大學歷史學報》8,1981年9月,頁143-181。
11. 尹章義,<臺南發展史>,《漢聲雜誌》第22期,1989年8月,頁104-116。
12. 許清保,<巡訪哆囉嘓社群>,《臺灣文獻》,58:1,2007年3月,頁191-212。
13. 國分直一著,周金德譯,<臺灣南部先史遺跡及其遺物>,《南瀛文獻》第二卷第一期,1954年9月,頁19-26。
14. 程大學,<祭祀公業問題之初探>,《臺灣文獻》36:3,4,1985年12月,頁279-355。
15. 莊華堂,<白河地區平埔族調查報告>,《山海文化雙月刊》23/24,2000年8月,127-132。