1、 沈阳师范大学硕士学位论文初中英语课堂提问的认知导向研究姓名：林枫申请学位级别：硕士专业：外国语言学及应用语言学指导教师：赵凤琴20100501嬛威匫埦堄墩圮圍圃冊侾併尛密威奩圤孽娒噶咜俣匫埦堄墩併姉劾娉媅劝 100唝併厵圞作圮哲嗽実夼妠婗媤匫埦囘堄墩傪噺孹垁墋坳喬併墩堅嗄丢喚团匫埦堄墩噜倓唄俗兔堀俗墣孜俣孓娒夓寡俣仪実婗媤匫埦堄墩併噺孹佭夯劙奫古大壵併姉劾媠互坝丹宇仫媅奂併匫埦堄墩圮嗣倏妠圃噺孹垁墋倏嬪併凞仴堄傪剭圍匫埦堄墩併噺孹坳喬媅厶媏伬劙妠圃噺孹垁墋坳喬併堄傪墣孜俣実儣仪実婗媤匫埦堄墩併噺孹垁墋佭夯劙奫姉劾嗓姉劾唍嚈密威圮剭圍併匫埦堄墩奫墉姉劾哲併嫭媏堩儦俣剭圍墩堅厛奨堄墩乶呋剭圍倡卜
2、圍圃冊侾奩圤佹倪咻变冔姉劾兔咽坝奯偃壕古劃仪実婗媤剭圍堄墩併噺孹垁墋佭夯丹俣奩亾孓宥噺孹垁墋佭夯兺併夝儁婉垝劙奫互坝墣嬳密威娫 Bloom (1956)併剭媲哲丣偃厛噺孹倣仠尤宇佭丹垫凟仞噌古囻姭圷例 107実妠併 4墚婗媤厊圍併 16剻婗媤匫劙奫匫埦剭妠吳婋丹俣傎 4哐厊圍劙奫孜俣奯併倰埛噦兺俣傎夾 124哐妠圃劙奫古墩勬侨亀丹俣垾圼凲併坤勜劙奫偃壕姉劾劂儤夑圥1仪実婗媤匫埦囘剭圍垾堄墩堅実媅厶媏堄傪妠圃噺孹垁墋併乥匙奨倏嚫奨兔傪噺孹坳喬墩堅垾嬭丁厸哌夑佾媏嬪圥奨勚兖奨兔佾噺孹坳喬墩堅2剭圍圠婸尛俯併堄墩乶呋圮堭娒墩堅堄墩乒堭妠圃作圮媅厶媏妠圃噺孹垁墋倏嬪併堄圥媠寤墩佹堄墩倪圤圠婸併喤呁喚团
3、3剭圍倡卜倪咻剭圍圠婸尛俯併圮刵佖並姨作剰墉刵佖兔凟奐丹嘟伬劙妠圃噺孹倏嬪併堄圥兔儳妉僇孮垾嬭丁厸喚团4匦壯併圮嫭垾億亃併匫埦実妠圃密侾倏姍併圍圃冊侾奩圤剰墉嗄丢孓娉圮妠圃尛壯併冊侾哖圤作圮侔哐噮妠圃冽佃墩堅孓宥乒厶媏妠圃噺孹垁墋倏嬪併圍圃冊侾奩圤娉伹嫭iv娒侷併丁厸嫿亾娫囘夓夰併嫀婉刋媅卯封剭圍併娉媅卯封妠圃封囶併孜俣匫埦堄墩実併伹嫭併墩堅墣勌嚒兕堄傪匫埦堄墩併噺孹垁墋坳喬僃仫古亗圻奯剉婀凷垩噦仪実圃噺孹唏县媅夛作圮丑威併傪坳喬噺孹垁墋俣埀咜卯坺娉圮丑威併剭圍婛伦封函嚖圽吂凓嫞婸堄墩乶呋堄傪墩堅併噺孹坳喬凢凮倡卜僭厳妠圃俯坺俯墩加匦唏伬劙妠圃併噺孹垁墋倏嬪兔媤姍壭佴儁刿伝噺孹垁墋佭夯匫埦堄墩
4、圍圃冊侾vAbstractClassroom questioning is one of the most essential interactive modes betweenteachers and students which has been studied by people for about one hundred years.However, in English classroom of modern junior high middle school , teachers tend toask less higher level cognitive questions an
5、d their questions are usually lack ofdifficulty and hierarchy. In view of the above phenomena, this thesis tries to study thecognitive ortientation of classroom questioning in junior high middle school, and itpoints out that effective questioning is the fundation of enlightening studentscognitive de
6、velopment and the raise of teachers classroom questioning cognitivelevel benefits students cognitive development.Aiming at investigating the cognitive orientation of classroom questioning injunior middle school, this thesis mainly focuses on teachers questioning behaviors.The purposes of this thesis
7、 are as follows: to categorize teachers question types, toclarify teacher questioning strategies, to study teacher feedbacks and to investigateinteractive mode between teachers and students and finally to find out teacherscognitive orientation of classroom questioning in junior middle school and try
8、 to findout reasons behind these cognitive orientations.Based on Blooms (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: CognitiveDomain4 teachers and 124 students from No.107 Middle School of Shenyang werechosen randomly as the subjects of this study. Firstly, 4 classes from each teacherwere recorded, th
9、en interviews were carried out with these four teachers, and finallyiiquestionnaires concerning about the research questions were handed out to 124students. The results of the study have shown us that: 1) Questions which arebeneficial to raise students cognitive level such as referential, divergent
10、and highercognitive level questions were asked fewer than those display, convergent and lowercognitive questions. 2) The most popular questioning strategy used by teachers isredirecting, but elicitating and prompting are the most effective ways to promotestudents cognitive development. 3) As for tea
11、cher feedback, simple praise is usedmost frequently by teachers and they never use negetive feedback. 4) Fortunately,volunteering is the most common interactive mode in the observing classes, andwhich is also students most favorable one, however, nominating which would hinderstudents cognitive devel
12、opment also takes a certain proportion.In connection with the problems of cognitive orientation, this thesis gives sometrial suggestions, that is although junior middle school students cognitive thinkingability is limited, certain amount of higher cognitive level questions are stillnecessary.Key Wor
13、ds: cognitive orientation, classroom questioning, teacher-student interactioniiiList of TablesTable 2.1 Ornsteins illustration of Blooms taxonomy.9Table 3.1 Background Information of the Subjects32Table 3.2 Questionnaires to Students.34Table 4.1 Teachers Classroom Questions per Lesson.38Table 4.2 St
14、udents feedback towards the help of classroom questioning for theircognitive thinking.42Table 4.3 Students preferences for different kinds of questions42Table 4.4 Students preference towards questioning strategies, teacher feedback andinteractive patterns between teacher and students43Table 4.5 Disp
15、lay and Referential Questions: Number and Percentage.45Table 4.6 Convergent and Divergent Questions (Mean per Class).46Table 4.7 Lower and Higher Cognitive Questions: (Mean per Class)48Table 4.8 Teachers Questioning Strategies: Totals from 4 Classes per Teacher49Table 4.9 Teachers Feedback: Totals f
16、rom 4 Classes per Teacher.51Table 4.10 The Way Questions are Answered: Totals from 4 Classes perTeacher54ixList of FiguresFigure 4.1 Display and referential questions used by EFL teachers.45Figure 4.2 Convergent and divergent questions used by EFL teachers47Figure 4.3 Lower-level and higher-level qu
17、estions used by EFL teachers.48Figure 4.4 Questioning strategies used by EFL teachers50Figure 4.5 Feedbacks used by EFL teachers52Figure 4.6 Interactive patterns between teacher and students55xList of AbbreviationsCLTESLEFLSLATcommunicative language teachingEnglish as a second langaugeEnglish as a f
18、oreign languagesecond langauge acquisitionteacherS studentSs studentsL2 second languageZPDS. A.S. P.I. C.Fre.Per.zone of proximal developmentself answeringsimple praiseimplicit correctionFrequencypercentxi妚墔呌墝俉企奩囼哆噶孲宧圂哌垾亿剜併坻圦妠墚呒墣圮噶嫭宇佭剭圍併宇佭壿俏去劙奫姉劾働尤垾噌佴併亾儤仲墣実娨劬寏哌婔婸併唍嚈塣呒墣乒儳噹兕嗓埀僁噶凗凲堈娨劬倏並凗寘奏儦併尤喦亾儤俣墣併姉劾尣仫
19、宧威僚夔併僁噶兔凲堈勸娨嫭墣実娫哌噢併倪圤丣哌噶填噖娹圝佮圂哌併倕呀劂儤婾噶仅佔尤子嗶哐 嚀嗉妚墔呌墝圚婲圻噍囼哆噶坁噓囻姭圍倣但妠姉劾圃仹剌噶坻圦妠墚呒墣併噖乖凗乖偃唍嚈丙嚖媅儁坤勜匿劙奫刯垼媅噓名妠墚呒墣丹夯儣刕密儅乖咚凗嗓宇侷凟僢垒剜呒墣併侘尀兔完宙嫝妈呒墣亀嫗兔劉嫗媅噓匦娫习婸婥婖垺婖凗嚱咽佹偿宕圽保伹凈丙妠墚呒墣咱併妠墚呒墣嫭劃咱兺圱婸儏侷尤子嗶哐 嚀嗉AcknowledgmentsThis thesis could not be finished without the aide of many people. I would liketo express my gratitude
20、, appreiation and thanks to them.First and foremost, I am greatly indebted to my supervisor Professor ZhaoFengqin, a resourceful and responsible scholar; without her invaluable suggestions,insightful comments and painstaking corrections, I could hardly had finished thisthesis. Great thanks to her ca
21、re for both my academic study and daily life.Secondly, sincere thanks go to all the teachers who have teached me in the fieldof linguistics, among whom are kind and knowledgeable scholars, such as Prof. FanGexin, Prof. Wu Jingping, Prof. Wu Qiong and Prof. Zhao Tianshu. It was theseprofessors who ha
22、ve opened my eyes to linguistics and greatly widened my horizons.My genuine thanks also go to my parents, my beloved husband and my newlyborn son for their spiritual support and care.Last but not the least, I would like to give my thanks to all my classmates andfriends for their friendship, inspirat
23、ion and help.iChapter 1 Introduction1.1 Background of the Present Study With the implementation of national education reforms, the traditionaleducation principles and teaching models have been greatly challenged, andmeanwhile it demands higher standards for language teachers. Influenced by thedevelo
24、pment of linguistic studies and the study of cognitive psychology, thecommunicative language teaching has become more and more popular in the field ofteaching English as a foreign language teaching since 1970s.Classroom questioning, which plays an essential role in language teaching, isone of the mo
25、st powerful techniques used by teachers to engage students involvementin classroom teaching activities, and for this reason, it has been researched for nearlyabout 100 years. Effective questioning can improve learners output, just as Sanderssaid :“Good questions recognize the wide possibilities of t
26、hought and are built aroundvarying forms of thinking. Good questions are directed toward learning and evaluativethinking, rather than determining what has been learned in a narrow sense” (1966, p.4).Ur (2005) proposed that questioning is a universally used activation techniquein teaching. Obviously,
27、 most of the interactions between the language teachers andstudents is via questions. Teachers questioning is not only a way of communication,but also a cognitive device used to push learners try out hypothesis about the targetlanguage. With a long history and demonstrated effectiveness, classroom q
28、uestioning1is also of interest of many researchers because of its widespread use as acontemporary teaching technique.For all of the above mentioned, it is widely acknowledged that classroomquestioning promotes students thinking and learning, but researches in actualclassroom research concerning cogn
29、itive orientation of teachers questioning are notenough especially in junior high middle schools. In China, English is regarded as aforeign language, although more and more Chinese began to learn English even inkindergarten. Realizing its great value, the present author carried out this study whicha
30、iming at investigating cognitive orientations reflected in techers questioning injunior high middle school.1.2 Purpose of the Present Study After reviewing the related previous studies on classroom questioning, theauthor found that most of them are only focused on skin-deep level, that is to say onl
31、ydescriptions of classroom questioning features have been investigated. So the purposeof this study is aiming at analyzing the reasons under these phenomena.Junior high middle school students are younger teenagers whose mentalthinking is not mature enough. They need teachers instruction to lead them
32、 to ahigher cognitive thinking level. Therefore, the cognitive orientation of a teacher seemsof great importance in guiding students to critical thinking in EFL classroom andclassroom questioning serves as a main technique used by the teachers to organizetheir class. So researches of cognitive orien
33、tation of teachers classroom questioning2are of great interest and value, and undoubtly will enlighten teachers on theirpedagogical methodology. The present study will investigate cognitive orientation ofteacher questioning on the following aspects: question types, questioning strategies,teacher fee
34、dback and finally interactive mode between teacher and students. Aftercollecting the data from classroom observation, the author will analyze these datacomplemented with students questionnaire and interviews to find out what are thecognitive orientations of the teachers, what factors lead to these o
35、rientations and howthey influence students thinking.1.3 Overall Structure of the Thesis This thesis consists of five parts, and to be more specific, it is organized as thefollowings:Chapter One is a brief introduction of the whole thesis, discussing thebackground of the study, the purpose of the stu
36、dy and finally provided the overallstructure of the thesis.Chapter Two is a review of literature on the theoretical framework of this studyand the previous studies on classroom questioning in both China and foreign countries.In addition, the thesis also introduces some important issues relating to c
37、lassroomquestioning, such as: types of questions, questioning strategies, teacher feedback andinteraction mode between teacher and students, which constitutes the essentialinformation for the present study.Chapter Three describes the research design, including research questions,3research subjects,
38、instruments of the research and data collection.Chapter Four provides detailed description and analysis of the research resultsbased on the data collected from classroom observation, questionnaire and interviews.Besides, after analyzing the results the author also discuss the results in this chapter
39、.Chapter Five first summarized the major findings of this research and thengives pedagogical implications to language educators, and next points out limitationsof the study and finally provided some trial suggestions for further studies.4Chapter 2 Literature ReviewThis chapter will present an overvi
40、ew of some central issues relating to thepresent study. It begins with an introduction of the theoretical basis of theresearch-Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain,Anderson and Krathwohls revised version of Blooms taxonomy. For this thesisconcerns about the cognitive ori
41、entation, the relating terms of cognition basis ofquestioning will be presented, either. Then a review of questioning related issues willbe presented including definitions, effective questioning, categories, strategies ofquestioning and teacher feedback. Finally, the researches on teachers classroom
42、questioning both at home and abroad will be reviewed.2.1 Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives As early as the 1950s, a group of American psychologists and educationalistsled by Bloom classified objectives of learning into different categories. Six majorclasses of interrelated objectives were id
43、entified in the cognitive domain by Bloom. In2001, Anderson and Krathwohl tried to perfect Blooms taxonomies. They changedthe taxonomy both terminologically and structurally. Development of learnerscognitive abilities has always been one of the most important goals of education inEFL classroom. Vygo
44、tskys Scaffolding Theory and Zone of Proximal Developmenttheory (ZPD) have shed light on teachers idea on how to improve learners cognitiveabilities. Later, the author will give a brief inroduction to the above mentioned issues.In most classroom studies, the cognitive levels of questions are classif
45、ied with5references to Blooms (1956) taxonomy of cognitive levels. It is a hierarchicalclassification system based on the cognitive processing demands placed on students. Itwas pioneered by Benjamin Bloom (1956) and hence the name. It means that theupper levels are dependent on and subsume the lower
46、. There are altogether six levelsin the taxonomy:1) Knowledge Questions: The knowledge category is the lowest in Bloomstaxonomy and involves the ability to remember information. When the teacherspurpose is to determin whether students remember certain specific facts, he or she willask recall questio
47、ns.A recall answer does not go beyond the information previously presented, nordoes it change the form or organization of the information. Answers of knowledgequestions can be easily judged as right or wrong if compared with the original source.Also included will be information which is acquired thr
48、ough everyday experience. Forexample, “What do we buy from the drugstore?” This knowledge category is criticalto other levels of thinking. We cannot ask students to think at higher levels if they lackfundamental information.Although important, this category also has some drawbacks. The main one isthat teachers tend to overuse it. Another drawback is that knowledge questions accessonly a surperficial understanding, and what is memorized is rapidly forgo
