대학 영작문 강의의 교사언어 비교 분석 : 원어민교수 대 비원어민교수
A Comparison of Native vs. Non-native Teacher Talk in College EFL Classrooms
- 주제(키워드) 영어교육 교사언어 , 원어민교사와 비원어민교사 , 대학 영어 원어강의 , 대학 영작문 강의
- 발행기관 아주대학교
- 지도교수 김현옥
- 발행년도 2010
- 학위수여년월 2010. 2
- 학위명 석사
- 학과 및 전공 교육대학원 영어교육
- 실제URI http://www.dcollection.net/handler/ajou/000000010682
- 본문언어 한국어
- 저작권 아주대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
초록/요약
The language in college EFL classrooms needs to be investigated since lectures in English have become regularized. Moreover, the importance of lectures in English has increased as the English immersion program of the new government has been emphasized. A useful focus of an inquiry would be the aspect of communicative language teaching. This study intends to investigate teacher talk of native and non-native English-speaking professors in two college English composition classes. The subjects of this study are one native English-speaking teacher (NEST) and non-native English-speaking teacher (non-NEST) each. The data was collected two or three times per each lecturer from voice and video recordings, and non-participation observations in the classrooms. Then, one recording each from both professors was analyzed in terms of language function, modifications and feedback. The results are as follows: first, looking at language function, the two high frequency functions of both professors were information and opinion functions. It goes with the general fact that information and opinion functions are the main language functions in a teacher-lead class. Second, looking at modifications and feedback, the non-NEST used comprehension checks much more than the NEST. It is related to the frequency of opinion; that is, the non-NEST used comprehension checks frequently when using the opinion function. Third, on another aspect of modifications and feedback, the frequency of repetition of the non-NEST was higher than that of the NEST. In the case of non-NEST, he repeated his own speech 10 times more than learners' speech. The repetition function was connected with the ctpes of transmission of information by professors. Fourth, on yet another aspect of modifications and feedback, the frequency of response was similar from both professors' speech. Additionally, types of response such as simple response, clarification requests, and confirmation checks were evenly used by both professors. This study suggests the aspects as follows: first, the application of various language functions such as suasion and future scenarios should be increased. Second, when it comes to high frequency language functions, in the case of information function, the application of guessing information by learners should be increased, instead of explaining information by a teacher. Third, on another aspect of high frequency language functions, the application of referential questions should be increased to induce learners' more active participation. In conclusion, various and specific ideas about teacher talk should involve consideration from more interactive communicative language teaching focusing on a learner-centered class. More research needs to be conducted under other English-progressed classes such as conversation and grammar classes in college EFL classrooms.
more목차
목 차
1. 서론 1
2. 이론적 배경 3
2. 1. 교사언어(teacher talk)의 정의와 특징 3
2. 2. 교사언어의 기능 4
2. 3. 교사언어의 수정과 피드백 5
2. 4. 선행 연구 8
3. 연구 방법 11
3. 1. 연구 문제 11
3. 2. 연구 대상 11
3. 3. 연구 방법 및 절차 12
3. 4. 연구의 제한점 16
4. 연구결과 분석 및 논의 17
4. 1. 교실 수업에 관한 전반적인 설명 17
4. 1. 1. 원어민교수의 수업 17
4. 1. 2. 비원어민교수의 수업 18
4. 2. 교사언어의 기능에 관한 연구결과 분석 19
4. 3. 교사언어의 수정 및 피드백에 관한 연구결과 분석 21
4. 3. 1. 이해확인형 질문 사용하기 21
4. 3. 2.. 반응하기 22
4. 3. 3. 반복하여 말하기 24
5. 결론 및 시사점 27
참고문헌 30
부록 33
Abstract
