The purpose of the study is to analyze discourse in language interview test to study colloquial errors spoken by Korean language learners and subsequent interaction between a teacher and a learner.
The study collects spoken materials of 236 student...
The purpose of the study is to analyze discourse in language interview test to study colloquial errors spoken by Korean language learners and subsequent interaction between a teacher and a learner.
The study collects spoken materials of 236 students from 4 universities, amounting to 110,620 words recorded and transcripted.
The study asks three research questions about the spoken errors and the sequence of teacher-learner interaction, each of which is studied in chapter 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
The research questions can be summarized as follows: (1) teacher’s post-error interaction and its type, type of effective interaction by the teacher, preference structure in the sequence of taking turns by the teacher for interaction, and differences in interaction based on proficiency, (2) post-error interaction by students and its type, types of effective interaction by student, preference structure of turn-taking in interaction by students, and differences in interaction based on proficiency, (3) type of proficiency-based errors of high frequency and that of errors functioning as a communicational obstacle, and differences in teacher-student interaction based on error type and learner proficiency.
Chapter 2 contains theoretical background of the study, that is, error analysis, interaction and feedback, discourse analysis, and conversation analysis. This study analyzed the error and the teacher-student interaction focusing on the interaction theory and error correction feedback through conversation analysis that is one area of discourse analysis.
Chapter 3 deals with a first research question including teacher’s post-error interaction and its type, type of effective interaction by the teacher, preference structure in the sequence of taking turns by the teacher for interaction, and differences in interaction based on proficiency (on level and stage of learning).
A ‘(linguistic) scaffolding (di-dim-mal(디딤말)), teacher-initiated interaction following colloquial errors by students, means the interaction that enables students to eliminate language obstacles to continue to speak when having difficulties for further communication. It consists of lexical scaffolding, revision-inducing scaffolding, additional utterance-inducing scaffolding, scaffolding for correction, and paraphrasing scaffolding and the lexical scaffolding could be subdivided into lexicon-revising scaffolding and lexicon-providing scaffolding. One of the most effective teacher interactions for all proficiency is the lexical scaffolding.
There arise sixteen types of exchange, preference structure of scaffolding in turn-taking sequence of teacher in teacher-student interaction, from which only five types of exchange in which scaffolding is provided by teacher following ‘asking, asking back’ session by students display a complementary outcome but, in the other types of exchange, it indicates that a teacher plays a driving role while students remain passive in teacher-student interaction.
Because students of different level of proficiency experience a different form of difficulties in communication, effective interaction by teacher appears to vary depending on their proficiency. At a beginner’s level, obstacles in communication are caused by colloquial error, unfinished speech act, lack of vocabulary, and comprehension problem, resulting in all type of scaffolding by the teacher being effective and higher frequency in using the revision-inducing scaffolding and scaffolding for correction so that teacher-student interaction is correction-driven. At an intermediate level, paraphrasing and lexical scaffoldings seem to be effective due to comprehension issue and inefficient expressional vocabulary. Because learners at an advanced level understand vocabulary issue as a main problem in communication, lexical scaffolding appears to be the most effective. They consider expressional vocabulary as a main cause of difficulty in communication and ask a teacher for lexical scaffolding, leading interaction between teacher and student to be complementary.
Chapter 4 focuses on the second research question, post-error interaction by students and its type, types of effective interaction by student, preference structure of turn-taking in interaction by students, and differences in interaction based on proficiency.
Post-error student interaction is ‘asking’ and ‘asking back’, the former as a form of interaction to overcome difficulties in expression and the latter in comprehension. The type of ‘asking’ is about asking for lexicon and that of ‘asking back’ is about asking back for lexicon, detailed description, clarification, keyword, and asking back again. Proficiency determines which type is effective in interaction and it is ‘asking’ for beginners and ‘asking back’ for advanced learners for effective communicational interaction.
In teacher-learner interaction are thirteen types of exchange as a preference structure of turn-taking of ‘asking-asking back’ in which teacher-leaner interaction is very complementary in that learners play a leading role in eliminating obstacles in communication and teacher support them with scaffolding and confirmation. In terms of proficiency-based differences in learner interaction, a student with lower proficiency involves more frequently in ‘asking back’ caused by comprehension difficulty and higher proficiency results in ‘asking for lexicon’ due to notice of error on expressional vocabulary and the feeling of anxiety.
In Chapter 5 is addressed the third research question including type of proficiency-based errors of high frequency and that of errors functioning as a communicational obstacle, and differences in teacher-student interaction based on error type and learner proficiency. The main cause of errors varies depending on proficiency based on which the type of errors shows difference frequency. Different level of proficiency also leads to different communication difficulties. It shows that beginners commit errors in receptive area, intermediate in receptive and expressional vocabulary, and advanced in expressional vocabulary. In all range of proficiency, a teacher and students see lexical error, rather than grammatical error, as a main culprit of communication obstacles with which they engage in certain type of interaction in mind.
The teacher-student interaction responds differently to the type of error and proficiency. For beginners, a teacher continues to take the lead in interaction after grammatical and lexical errors and learners take that role after response errors. For intermediate, a teacher interacts after grammatical error using more frequently revising-inducing interaction while after lexical error he or she is more likely to provide lexical scaffolding. For the advanced, there is relatively low demand for correction relative to grammatical error but in the case of lexical errors it shows complementary interaction structure of ‘vocabulary asking - vocabulary scaffolding’, and this is because both the teacher and learners understand lexical element as communication difficulties.
Chapter 6 as a conclusion summarizes the results of research and suggests a direction for a desirable teaching and learning method with the results obtained to improve colloquial ability for communication. Differentiated teaching and learning methods are proposed based on learners' proficiency; receptive sector for beginners, receptive and productive vocabulary for intermediate, and productive vocabulary for the advanced. It also proposes a teaching and learning method well-balanced between productive and receptive sections, teaching method to enhance students’ ability in use of vocabulary and how to apply the analyzed discourse structure to colloquial language evaluation.
，韩语论文题目，韩语论文范文 |
