{"title":"对外汉语教学:围绕任务的语法时间的课堂研究","authors":"Melissa Baralt, M. Bravo","doi":"10.1515/caslar-2016-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Contrary to common belief, there is a place for grammar teaching in task-based language teaching (TBLT). It is still an unresolved debate, however, what the most effective timing of grammar teaching is around a task. Citing theory, some methodologists argue against grammar in the pre-task phase (e. g., Willis 1996. A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman; Willis and Willis 2007. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press), while others argue for it (e. g., DeKeyser 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Lightbown 1998. What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch, 197–212. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters and Nunan 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Still other methodologists have suggested that a pre-task grammar explanation renders TBLT more culturally appropriate in Confucian-heritage teaching contexts (e. g., Carless 2007. The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. Schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35. 595–608; Luk 2009. Preparing EFL students for communicative task performance: The nature and role of language knowledge. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 19. 67–90). None of these claims have been tested empirically. The present paper attempts to contribute to that gap by reporting on a case study that took place in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom in the United States. We examined how a Chinese teacher’s grammar teaching in the pre- versus post-task phase differentially affected the task outcome, as well as the teacher’s and learners’ beliefs of which was most effective. One Chinese teacher and 12 learners participated in the study. Results showed that the task outcome was comprised of more language production, accuracy, and modified output, as well as 15 times more interactional turns, when the grammar was explained in the post-task phase. However, the teacher overwhelmingly valued a grammar explanation in the pre-task phase. Learners were equally divided. We discuss how the methodological timing of grammar shaped discourse differently for the pragmatic ends of tasks, and make suggestions for Chinese teachers new to TBLT.","PeriodicalId":37654,"journal":{"name":"Chinese as a Second Language Research","volume":"5 1","pages":"27 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/caslar-2016-0002","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teaching Chinese as a foreign language: A classroom study on the timing of grammar around a task\",\"authors\":\"Melissa Baralt, M. Bravo\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/caslar-2016-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Contrary to common belief, there is a place for grammar teaching in task-based language teaching (TBLT). It is still an unresolved debate, however, what the most effective timing of grammar teaching is around a task. Citing theory, some methodologists argue against grammar in the pre-task phase (e. g., Willis 1996. A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman; Willis and Willis 2007. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press), while others argue for it (e. g., DeKeyser 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Lightbown 1998. What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch, 197–212. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters and Nunan 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Still other methodologists have suggested that a pre-task grammar explanation renders TBLT more culturally appropriate in Confucian-heritage teaching contexts (e. g., Carless 2007. The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. Schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35. 595–608; Luk 2009. Preparing EFL students for communicative task performance: The nature and role of language knowledge. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 19. 67–90). None of these claims have been tested empirically. The present paper attempts to contribute to that gap by reporting on a case study that took place in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom in the United States. We examined how a Chinese teacher’s grammar teaching in the pre- versus post-task phase differentially affected the task outcome, as well as the teacher’s and learners’ beliefs of which was most effective. One Chinese teacher and 12 learners participated in the study. Results showed that the task outcome was comprised of more language production, accuracy, and modified output, as well as 15 times more interactional turns, when the grammar was explained in the post-task phase. However, the teacher overwhelmingly valued a grammar explanation in the pre-task phase. Learners were equally divided. We discuss how the methodological timing of grammar shaped discourse differently for the pragmatic ends of tasks, and make suggestions for Chinese teachers new to TBLT.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37654,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese as a Second Language Research\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"27 - 61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/caslar-2016-0002\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese as a Second Language Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2016-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese as a Second Language Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2016-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
与人们的普遍看法相反,语法教学在任务型语言教学中占有一席之地。然而,围绕一个任务,什么是最有效的语法教学时间,这仍然是一个没有解决的争论。一些方法学家引用理论,反对在任务前阶段使用语法。,威利斯1996。基于任务的学习框架。哈洛:朗文;威利斯和威利斯2007。进行任务型教学。牛津:牛津大学出版社),而另一些人则持反对意见。DeKeyser 1998。超越形式:学习和练习第二语言语法的认知视角。见C. Doughty & J. Williams(编),《第二语言习得中的形式研究》,42-63页。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社;Lightbown 1998。这是什么?关于教学对二语学习影响的观察。R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith和M. Swain(编),外语教育学研究:克劳斯·法尔奇纪念册,197-212。克利夫登:多语言事务和努南2004。任务型语言教学。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社)。还有一些方法学家认为,任务前语法解释使任务型教学法在文化上更适合儒家传统的教学环境。, Carless 2007。任务型教学法在中学的适用性:来自香港的观点。学校:香港视角。系统35。595 - 608;陆2009。为英语学生的交际任务表现做准备:语言知识的性质和作用。亚洲英语教学杂志[j]。67 - 90)。这些说法都没有经过实证检验。本文试图通过报道一个在美国汉语作为外语课堂上进行的案例研究来弥补这一差距。我们考察了汉语教师在任务前阶段和任务后阶段的语法教学对任务结果的差异,以及教师和学习者对哪一种语法教学最有效的看法。1名汉语教师和12名学习者参与了研究。结果表明,当在任务后阶段解释语法时,任务结果包括更多的语言生成,准确性和修改输出,以及15倍的交互回合。然而,老师非常重视任务前阶段的语法解释。学习者被平均分配。我们讨论了语法的方法时机如何在任务的语用目的中不同地塑造语篇,并为新接触任务型教学的中国教师提出建议。
Teaching Chinese as a foreign language: A classroom study on the timing of grammar around a task
Abstract Contrary to common belief, there is a place for grammar teaching in task-based language teaching (TBLT). It is still an unresolved debate, however, what the most effective timing of grammar teaching is around a task. Citing theory, some methodologists argue against grammar in the pre-task phase (e. g., Willis 1996. A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman; Willis and Willis 2007. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press), while others argue for it (e. g., DeKeyser 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 42–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Lightbown 1998. What have we here? Some observations on the influence of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch, 197–212. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters and Nunan 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Still other methodologists have suggested that a pre-task grammar explanation renders TBLT more culturally appropriate in Confucian-heritage teaching contexts (e. g., Carless 2007. The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. Schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35. 595–608; Luk 2009. Preparing EFL students for communicative task performance: The nature and role of language knowledge. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 19. 67–90). None of these claims have been tested empirically. The present paper attempts to contribute to that gap by reporting on a case study that took place in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom in the United States. We examined how a Chinese teacher’s grammar teaching in the pre- versus post-task phase differentially affected the task outcome, as well as the teacher’s and learners’ beliefs of which was most effective. One Chinese teacher and 12 learners participated in the study. Results showed that the task outcome was comprised of more language production, accuracy, and modified output, as well as 15 times more interactional turns, when the grammar was explained in the post-task phase. However, the teacher overwhelmingly valued a grammar explanation in the pre-task phase. Learners were equally divided. We discuss how the methodological timing of grammar shaped discourse differently for the pragmatic ends of tasks, and make suggestions for Chinese teachers new to TBLT.
期刊介绍:
Chinese as a Second Language Research (CASLAR) focuses on research on the acquisition, development, and use of Chinese as a Second Language. It supports scholars and researchers from different linguistic fields, and serves as a forum to discuss, investigate, and better understand Chinese as a Second Language. Each issue (2 per year) of the journal publishes three papers in Chinese and three papers in English; summaries are always provided both in Chinese and English. We are especially interested in publishing articles and research papers that investigate how empirical findings of CSL research can advance and develop better Chinese language teaching methodologies, explore the implications of CSL research for theoretical developments and practical applications, focus on the acquisition and use of varieties of CSL, study the nature of interaction between native speakers and non-native speakers of Chinese, address major issues of second language acquisition from the perspective of CSL, analyze the ways in which language is both shaped by culture and is the medium through which culture is created.