기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
장바구니
 고객센터
본문검색
  • 검색 히스토리
실시간 인기검색어
서지반출
Incidental FonF in Adult EFL Classrooms - Participation Structure and Learner Uptake -
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • Incidental FonF in Adult EFL Classrooms - Participation Structure and Learner Uptake -
  • 상호작용 형태가 갖는 즉흥적 형태중심교수법과 학습자의 반응간의 관계
ㆍ 저자명
Ji Hyun Kim
ㆍ 간행물명
교과교육학연구KCI
ㆍ 권/호정보
2015년|19권 2호(통권52호)|pp.341-363 (23 pages)
ㆍ 발행정보
이화여자대학교 교과교육연구소|한국
ㆍ 파일정보
정기간행물|ENG|
PDF텍스트(0.33MB)
ㆍ 주제분야
교육학
서지반출

영문초록

The present study investigated the distribution of incidental focus on form (FonF) occurring in intact EFL classrooms and its relationship with the participation structure (i.e., whole class/small group/one-on-one interactions) and learner uptake (successful uptake vs. unsuccessful uptake) across the types of FonF (reactive vs. preemptive FonF) and participation structure. The data from eleven hours of communicative lessons from five classes were analyzed according to the types of incidental FonF, participation structures, and learner uptake. The study found that reactive FonF took place more frequently than preemptive FonF in small group and one-on-one interactions while they occurred at a similar rate in whole class interactions. In addition, during whole class interactions, teachers and students initiated FonF at a similar rate, but, during small group and individual interactions, a majority of FonF was generated by students. When learner uptake was considered, students responded more successfully to preemptive FonF, especially FonF generated by themselves in all participation structures. However, in the case of reactive FonF, unsuccessful uptake took place more frequently than successful uptake in whole class interactions, whereas more successful uptake was observed than unsuccessful uptake in small group and one-on-one interactions. These results provided insights into the role of participation structure as an important mediator influencing the provision of FonF and the quality and quantity of uptake, which may eventually affect the opportunities for L2 development.

영문초록

본연구는의사소통중심의성인영어교실에서일어나는즉흥적형태중심교수법(incidental focus on form)과교사와학생의상호작용형태,학습자의반응이갖고있는관계를조사하였다.즉흥적형태중심 교수법은반응형태(reactive FonF)와준비형태(preemptive FonF), 상호작용은전체대상상호작용, 그 룹대상상호작용,개인대상상호작용으로나누어분석되었고,학습자의반응도성공적반응과비성공적 반응으로나눠조사되었다.다섯개의교실에서수집된11시간의자료를바탕으로위에제시된요소간의 관계성을분석하였고그결과는다음과같다.전체대상상호작용시에는준비형태방법과반응형태방법 이비슷한빈도로사용되었으나,그룹,개인대상상호작용에서는,반응형태방법사용의빈도수가준비 형태방법보다더높게나타났다.또한,전체상호작용에서는,교사에의한준비형태방법이학생에의한 준비형태 방법보다 빈번하게 발생하였으나, 그룹, 개인 상호작용시의 경우에는 학생에 의한 준비형태 방법이교사에의한준비형태방법보다빈번하게발생하였다. 학습자반응의경우, 상호작용의형태와 는관계없이학습자는자신이제시한준비형태방법에는성공적인반응을보였다.그러나반응형태방법 후의학습자의반응의성공여부는상호작용형태에따라다른결과를도출했다. 본연구의결과는상호 작용형태와형태중심교수법, 그리고학습자의반응간의관계를보여주고있다.

목차

I. Introduction
II. Literature Review
III. Methods
IV. Results and Discussion
V. Conclusion
References

키워드

Incidental focus on formparticipation structurelearner uptakeEFL adult classrooms즉흥적 형태중심 교수법상호작용 형태학습자의 반응의사소통중심 영어수업

참고문헌 (47건)

  • Bastone, R. (2007). Recontextualizing focus on form. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp.87-99). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Cazden, C., & Beck, S. (2003). Classroom discourse. In S. R. Goldman (Ed.). Handbook of discourse processes (pp.165-197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Chaudron, C. (1997). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
  • Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787-816.
  • Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In p.Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206-257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on formin classroomsecond language acquisition (pp.197-261). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46.
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
  • Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
  • Han, Z-H. (2007). On the role of 'meaning' in focus on form. In Z-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp.45-79). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kim, J. H. (2012a). Effects of recasts on child EFL learners’ development of regular and irregular past tense forms. English Teaching, 67(2), 3-26.
  • Kim, J. H. (2012b). Feedback opportunities and interactional context in adult EFL classrooms. Foreign Languages Education, 19(2), 1-26.
  • Kim, J. H. (2013). Written corrective feedback and accuracy development in EFL classrooms: Types and feedback and errors. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 17(2), 441-460
  • Kim, J. H., & Han, Z-H. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.269-297). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
  • Lightbown, p.(1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.177-194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.
  • Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adults English L2 classrooms: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
  • Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberge, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp.39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Long, M. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp.75-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
  • Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453-498.
  • Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
  • Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
  • Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
  • Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.407-452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, response, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
  • Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.
  • Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.
  • Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation structure and incidental focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. Language Learning, 63, 835-869.
  • Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87, 519-533.
  • Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.131-164). Amsterdam; John Benjamins.
  • Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp.1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In p.Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Seedhouse, p.(2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.
  • Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835-874.
  • Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). The communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme (COLT). Sydney, Australia: The National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
  • Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. p.Lantlof (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with context in interlanguage theory. Annual Reviewof Applied Linguistics, 20, 182-198.
  • Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.171-195). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NH: Ablex.
  • VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
구매하기 (5,200)
장바구니
추천 연관논문