对外汉语教师课堂话语中的形成性评测——经验教师和新手教师对比研究被引量：5

A Formative Assessment in TCFL Teachers' Discourse:Comparative Study of Novice and Experienced Teachers

导出

摘要本文立足于形成性评测的理论背景,采用话语分析的方法,对对外汉语经验教师和新手教师话语层面的形成性评测进行了对比研究。研究发现:在评测话语的总量与类型分布上,经验教师占据一定优势。经验教师具有较强的评测意识,能够根据教学环境构建评测话语以发挥其促学作用。在评测话语的组接上,经验教师目标清晰,并能依据学生的即时反应提供动态性的支持。相对而言,新手教师的评测话语呈现出单一、松散的特征。 Based on the theoretical background of classroom-based assessment, this research investigates and analyses the formative assessments in novice and experienced TCSL teachers＇ discourse with the method of discourse analysis. The research shows that the quantity and quality of the lCormative assessments in experienced teachers＇ discourse are better than those in novice teachers. Experienced teachers have clear objects to control their discourse and can promote students＇ study according to students＇ immediate response and provide dynamic assistance. But the assessment discourse of novice teachers lack connection and diversity.

作者赵炜

机构地区西安交通大学国际教育学院

出处《语言教学与研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第5期1-10,共10页 Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies

基金陕西省教育科学"十二五"规划2013年课题"陕西高校留学生短期综合汉语课程开发研究"(项目号:SGH13010) 西安交通大学2014年本科教学改革课题(项目号:1402Q) 西安交通大学国际教育学院青年教师科研基金(项目号:15K03)的阶段性成果

关键词对外汉语教师课堂话语形成性评测目标动态性 TCFL teachers classroom discourse formative assessment object dynamic

分类号 H195 [语言文字—汉语]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献19

1杨华,文秋芳.课堂即时形成性评估研究述评:思考与建议[J].外语教学理论与实践,2013(3):33-38. 被引量：55
2杨华,文秋芳.目标在外语课堂即时形成性评估中的动态变化特征及方式[J].外语教学与研究,2014,46(3):389-400. 被引量：32
3杨华,文秋芳.外语课堂即时形成性评估的“相倚性”研究[J].外语教学,2014,35(4):41-45. 被引量：25
4Aljaafreh, All & James Lantolf 1994 Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78(4) : 465-483.
5Black, Paul, Christine Harrison, Clare Lee, Bethan Marshall & Dylan Wiliam .2004. Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1) : 8-21.
6Black, Paul & Dylan William .2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability 21(1) : 5-31.
7Davin, Kristin .2013. Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote develop- ment and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17(3) : 303-322.
8Gattullo, Francesca .2000. Formative assessment in ELT primary (elementary) classrooms: An Italian case study. Language Testing 17(2): 278-288.
9Inbar-Lourie, Ofra .2008. Constructing a language assessment knowledge base.- A focus on language assess- ment courses. Language Testing 25(3) : 385-402.
10Leung, Constant & Bernard Mohan .2004. Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: As- sessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing 21(3): 335-358.

二级参考文献65

1曹荣平,张文霞,周燕.形成性评估在中国大学非英语专业英语写作教学中的运用[J].外语教学,2004,25(5):82-87. 被引量：184
2文秋芳.《文献阅读与评价》课程的形成性评估:理论与实践[J].Foreign Language Testingand Teaching,2011(3):39-49.
3Bell, B. & B. Cowie. 2001. "The characteristics of forma- tive assessment in science education". Science Education 85. pp536 -553.
4Black, P. & D. Wiliam 2009. " Developing the theory of formative assessment". Educational Assessment, Evalua- tion and Accountability 21. pp5 - 31.
5Black, P. 2009. "' Formative assessment issues across the curriculum: the theory and the practice". TESOL Quarter- ly 43. pp519 -524.
6Buck, G. A. & A. E. Trauth- Nare. 2009. "Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and learning". Journal of Science Teacher Education 20. pp475 -494.
7Cheng, L. , T. Rogers & H. Hu. 2004. "ESL/EFL instruc- tors' classroom assessment practices : purposes, methods, and procedures". Language Testing 21. pp360 - 389.
8Colby- Kelly, C. & C. E. Turner. 2007. "AFL research in the I2 classroom and evidence of usefulness : taking forma-tive assessment to the next level". The Canadian Modern Language Review 64. pp9 - 37.
9Cowie, B. & B. Bell. 1999. "A model of formative assess- ment in science education". Assessment in Education 6. ppl01 - 116.
10Erickson, F. 2007. "Some thoughts on "proximal" formative assessment of student learning". Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 106. pp186 - 216.