【网学提醒】：本文主要为网上学习者提供利用SCMC 真实语境提高中学生英语交际能力，希望对需要利用SCMC 真实语境提高中学生英语交际能力网友有所帮助，学习一下吧!
资料包括： 论文(81页25354字)
说明：摘要：外语教学的最终目的是培养学生的交际能力,强调语言功能的交际法在实际英语教学中并没有取得理想效果。 在课堂交际活动中,由于语法和言语结构没有得到充分的练习和巩固，造成学生言语输出的大量错误，直接影响语言的准确性与流利性。作为外语学习者，学生在言语输出的低层次阶段没有形成自动化，难以在交际表达时同时考虑言语的内容与结构，学生常常焦虑担心出错。另外，非真实的目标语言环境和交际任务、有限的接触与使用目标语言的机会，导致学生的消极应付行为,学生的口语交际能力即使经过几年的学习也没有得到提高。
本文以认知主义理论和二语习得理论为基础，通过分析言语输出假设，交互理论和情感因素理论在二语习得中的作用，参考了Levelt 和 de Bot 的言语输出模式，Anderson 的从陈述性知识到过程性知识的三个阶段 和 Mclaughlin 的言语加工过程的理论，认为促进与实现真正的口语交际能力的教学活动必须遵循言语输出的过程与机制,在交际活动中实现言语输出,言语交互和情感因素对二语习得的作用。
随着信息技术与因特网的发展，多媒体与网络越来越多地应用于外语教学，作为电脑技术的重要部分，电脑实时同步交互为英语学习者提供了更多的，轻松方便的， 经济的，不受时间地域限制的与英语本族语言者进行真实交际的机会。由于电脑实时同步交互兼具文本交互与语音交互的特点，它符合言语输出的过程和机制，类似于真实交际，但它降低了交际过程的速度，使交际者有时间考虑言语的内容与形式，因而电脑实时同步交互有可能弥补课堂交际的不足。本文通过实验，用问卷调查和口语测试的方法比较实验组（利用电脑实时同步交互）和控制组（在传统课堂交际环境下），通过数据的分析，推断出电脑实时同步交互在情感方面对英语学习者具有降低焦虑感，提高学习兴趣与动机，形成正确的学习态度的作用，对学习者的口语能力水平具有提高的作用，对学习者的交际能力具有促进的作用。
关键词: 交际能力，电脑实时交互，二语输出，计算机辅助教学
Introduction
1.1 A general description of the study
The communicative approach aims at improving learners’ communicative competence shifted the emphasis in FL teaching from a focus on linguistic form to activities which involve effective communication from the1970s. In the late 1980s, the ability to communicate seemed to have replaced grammatical accuracy as the measure of successful modern language learning even if grammatical errors occurred. However, the 1990s have seen the shortcomings of communicative approach being increasingly pointed out: engaging meaning and enabling communication might de-emphasize language grammar and form. Many EFL learners speak less accurately. In the post-communicative climate, there’s an urgency: balancing form and function in FL teaching. EFL teachers now urgently need a solution to solve the inefficiency of CLT and to increase authentic exposure and use of the target knowledge both inside and outside of the classroom.
To foster communicative competence and achieve real L2 communication, ELT activities should realize the roles of output (triggering function, hypothesis testing, metalinguistic function, etc); the roles of interaction (meaning negotiation, feedback, modified interaction, clarification, noticing, scaffolding, zone of proximal development) and the roles of affective factors (motivation, attitude, anxiety) in SLA; follow the notions of the Output Hypothesis from a psycholinguistic perspective as a basis for depicting L2 production process and for proposing mechanisms that influence L2 acquisition according to: Levelt’s model of language production together with de Bot’s adapted model, Anderson’s declarative knowledge to procedure knowledge as well as Mclaughlin’s controlled to automatic processing model.
目录：Title page…………………………………………………………………………………i
Approval page……………………………………………………………………………ii
English bstract…………………………………………………………………………iii
Chinese abstract…………………………………………………………………………iv
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………..…v
Table of contents………………………………………………………………………vi
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………….……………………………..1
1.1 A general description of the study………………………………………………….1
1.1.1 Thesis statement…………………………………………………………2
1.1.2 Limitation of the study………………………………………………….2
1.1.3 Means of obtaining data……………………………………………….2
1.1.4 Data presentation and analysis techniques…………………………….3
1.2 Need for the study…………………………………………………………….3
1.3 The overall structure of the thesis…………………………………………….3
Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………….…5
2.1 Communicative language teaching………………………………………..….5
2.1.1Communicative approach and communicative competences…………….5
2.1.2 Problems in CLT classroom……………………………………………..7
2.2 Theories of SLA…………………………………………………………….9
2.2.1 The functions of output………………………………………………….9
2.2.2 Interactionist theory…………………………………………………… 10
2.2.3 The affective factors and language learning……………………………12
2.3 The process and mechanism of language production………………………..13
2.3.1 Levelt’s speech production model……………………………………13
2.3.2 De Bot’s adapted model………………………………………………..15
2.3.3 Anderson’s declarative –procedural knowledge model….……………..17
2.3.4 Mclaughlin’s information processing model…………………………18
2.4 Synchronous computer-mediated communication……………………….….21
2.4.1 CALL development…………………………………………………… 21
2.4.2 Interpretation and features of SCMC…………………………………..22
2.4.3 Studies of SCMC and language learning………………………………23
Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………………26
3.1 Research questions……………………………………………….…….…….26
3.2 Design of the experiment………………………………………………….27
3.2.1 Subjects and settings of the research…………………………………27
3.2.2 Treatment and procedures of the experiment…………………………. 28
3.3 Instruments of the research…………………………….…………………….32
3.3.1 Questionnaire…………………………………………………………..32
3.3.2 Pretest and posttest in the experiment……………………. ……………33
3.4 Data collection and statistical measurement…………………………………34
3.4.1 Questionnaires comparisons ………………………………….. …………..….34
3.4.2 Pretest and posttest comparisons…………………………………….…35
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion………………………………………………. 37
4.1 Major findings………………………………………………………………37
4.1.1 The effect of SCMC on learners’ affect towards English learning….….37
4.1.2 The effect of SCMC on facilitating learners’ oral proficiency……. …..39
4.1.3 The effect of SCMC on enhancing learners’ communicative competence……………………………………………………………45
4.2 Limitations of the present study…………………………….……………….49
4.3 Suggestions for further study……….……………………………………….50
Chapter Five: Conclusion………………………………………………………….…54
References………………………………………………………………………………57
Appendix I (questionnaires)………………………………………………………………….…62
Appendix II (oral production interview scale)………………………………………….68
Appendix III (speaking tasks)……………………………………………………….….69
参考文献：Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89,
369-406.
Anderson, J.R. (1980). Cognitive Psychology and It’s Implication. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Arnold, J. (2000). Affect in Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Write to speak: The effects of electronic communication on the oral achievement of fourth semester French students. In J. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Issues in language program direction (pp. 93-115). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, H. D. (2002). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using Computer Networking to Facilitate the Acquisition of
Interactive Competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted.
Applied Linguistics, 13 (1), 1-24.
De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Word production and the bilingual lexicon. In R.
Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 191-214). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Egbert, J., Chao, C., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments: An overview. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 1-13). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Ellis,R.(2000). Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
Frizler, K. [a.k.a. Frizzy] (1995, December 6). The Internet as an Educational Tool in ESOL Writing Instruction [WWW document]. Unpublished Master’s thesis, San Francisco State University. URL http://thecity.sfsu.edu/~funweb/thesis.htm
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction and the Second Language learner. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erbium Associates, Inc.
Hadley, A. O. (2004). Teaching Language in the Context. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Han, Bocheng. (2000). Statistics in Foreign Language Teaching and Research. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Healy-Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer assisted classroom discussion in the foreign
language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25
(5), 455-464.
Herrings, S. (Eds). (1996). Computer Mediated Communication: Linguistic, social and cross cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., Cope, J. (1986). “Foreign language classroom anxiety.”
Modern Language Journal, 70: 125-132.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence, in Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds). Sociolinguistics, 269-285. London: Penguin.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved 02, Nov., 2004 from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/default.html.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language
instruction:A preliminary study. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects
on quality and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79
(4), 457-476.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. New York: Longman.
Lee. L (1999) Collaboration Between University and Secondary School Foreign Language Teachers. ED-99-CO-0008. http://www.cal.org/ericcll
Lennon, P (1990 ) Investigation Fluency in EFL: a quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40:387-417.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). The ability to speak: from intentions to spoken words. European
Review, 3 (1), 13-23.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G.
Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, & C. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic
disorders and pathologies: An international handbook (pp. 1-15). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Linnell, J. (1995). Can negotiation provide a context for learning syntax in a second language? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11 (2), 83-103. (ERIC
Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 393 305)
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
MacHntyre P. and R. Gardner. (1994). The Subtle Effects of Language Anxiety on
Cognitive Processing on the Second Language, Language Learning, 44:2,
283-305.
McLauglin, B. et al., (1983). Second-language learning: an information-process
perspective. Language Learning, 33:135-158.
Möhle, D. (1984). A comparison of the second language speech production of different native speakers. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second
language production (pp. 26-49). Tübingen: Narr.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the Language Learner. In Jane Arnold (eds.).
Affect in language learning(C). Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (ed.) (1996). Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century. Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii Press. 1-8.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through sychronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7-32.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development
of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-Based
Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Review article -- Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as
an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 11, 63-90.
Poulisse, N. (1997). Language production in bilinguals. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rehbein, J. (1987). On fluency in second language speech. In H. W. Dechert and M.
Raupach (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 97-105). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357-385.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: a review of the
anxiety research, Language Learning, 28:1，129-142.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input
and second language aquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3),
371-391.
Tse, (1997). Affecting Affect: The Impact of Ethnic Language Programs on Students’
Attitudes. Canadian Modern Language Review.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational Aspects of Using Computers for Writing and
Communication. Honolulu : University of Hawaii , Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second
language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
Weise, R. (1984). Language production in foreign and native languages: Same or different. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language
production (pp. 11-25). Tübingen: Narr.
Wen, Qiufang. (2004). Applied Linguistics Research Methods and Thesis Writing.
Beijing: Foreign language teaching and research press.
Widdowson, HG. (1978).Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford University Press.
作者点评：Because of insufficient authentic resources and the need to use the target language, EFL learners generally encounter difficulties developing communicative competence. Although CLT is now being gradually adopted, due to many factors such as the linier feature of face-to-face interaction, learners’ affection, learning and response pace, teachers find it challenging to maximize interaction in traditional EFL classrooms. The integration of SCMC into EFL learning can provide learners with more authentic input and more opportunities to participate in the target sociocultural contexts in which learners’ both linguistic and pragmatic knowledge can be promoted.
This study has proved that synchronous computer-mediated communication do facilitate EFL learners’ communicative competence from the following aspects:
1. by constructing learners’ positive affection towards English learning, such as reducing anxiety, increasing students’ interest and motivation of communication in the target language, forming correct attitude towards English communication. Student’s positive affection causes their active participation in CMC hence it’ll contribute to the increased quantity of interlanguage, which can aid in second language development.
2. by increasing authentic exposure(input) to the target language and use (output) chances of the TL for EFL learners to practice and enhance communicative competences. In the chances of output and interaction, learners will mostly experience meaning negotiation, positive or negative feedback, noticing the distance between his interlanguage and the target language, modify his language production, If all these are beneficial for the SLA process, as researchers have claimed, CMC using a Chat program can provide an effective medium for EFL learners to facilitate their foreign language development.
3. by reducing the rate of speech, allowing learners to notice the grammar and structure of the conversations in text form thus assure the accuracy of output, and through the practice, learners have more chances to turn his declarative knowledge into procedure knowledge, make the process of language production automatic, thereby acquire the fluency of output and therefore realize the proficiency result of language production.
It is therefore proposed that SCMC can be used to compensate the deficiency of interaction both inside and outside of EFL classrooms and benefit the learning and develop learners’ communicative competence to a certain extent.
Developing learners’ communicative competence and cultural knowledge is an urgent task English teachers are facing. From this perspective, the research explored in this study concludes that SCMC via the Internet is valuable to modern FL classrooms, although further research is necessary on the particular features of it.
It is important to emphasize that the results from this study do not suggest that communicative competence can be developed in the absence of face-to-face conversational interaction. It is suggested that SCMC using a chat program can be used as a powerful means of complementing, but not replacing, the normal English classroom. It may be most useful to view the chat room as analogous to the flight simulators used by pilots in training; the chat room sessions may well serve as a conversation simulator for foreign language learners. The notion that learners can practice “speaking” in an environment where affect and rate of speech are minimized is very appealing. Possibly more important is the realization that if we as second language instructors assume that face-to-face speech is the only way to develop conversational ability, we may in fact be disadvantaging a significant portion of our students. For students who find L2 oral production an overwhelming task and tend to tune out when the linguistic data generated in face-to-face conversational settings becomes too great, the online synchronous interaction appears to give them a leg up on developing L2 oral proficiency.
In the Information Age, the ability to communicate via computer networks will be essential, which has been generally accepted. Global CMC via the Internet will become increasingly important and skills of English, an international language, will be vital. For this reason, students will have to acquire both thorough computer skills and language skills to be successful in the Information Age.
Because the Internet is growing rapidly around the world and it is clear that the Internet is making and will continue to make a profound impact on society as a whole. It seems reasonable to predict that the integration of the Internet into the EFL classroom is a step in the right direction and eventually the Internet will find its way into the majority of the FL classrooms. It is likely that a further integration of computers into society in general and the language learning process in particular will take place. EFL instruction and the Internet will influence each other and their impact on society will grow noticeably as time goes by.
If educational professionals ignore the impact brought by the Internet and view it as just another technology, they may make a big mistake. Rather, as Frizler (1995) points out, “teachers who accept this challenge with enthusiasm and positivity will not only be at the forefront of historical change, but will also have a creative outlet in which to explore new and inventive ideas for teaching language, thus helping to develop a new paradigm in education.”
