英语论文网

Hypothesis andComprehensible Output Hypothesis. Then, the previous studies concerningquestioning type, wait-time, questioning distribution, ways of eliciting answers,modification of questions and feedback of the teachers are concluded in the secondpart. The third part reviews the relevant studies on comparison between native andnon-native speakers.

2.1 Theoretical Basis
In the process of language acquisition, language input exerts an enormousfunction. It has become a serious and important scientific topic in instruction theoryand teaching practice and it has stimulated wide-ranging studies and discussions.Language acquisition can not go smoothly without language input. Influenced byChomsky’s Language Acquisition Device, American linguist Krashen put forwardInput Hypothesis in 1980s.Krashen believes that in learning, what the learners need is “comprehensibleinput”. Comprehension is the precondition of internalization of knowledge. Krashen(1985) supposes that if the materials of language input are all easy to understand, it isnot good for language learners, because it will not arouse their learning interests andstimulate their internal motivations. Krashen points out that in order to make languagelearners develop from a lower stage into a higher stage, the language input providedfor them should contain a portion of language structure of next phase, that is to say,when learning new knowledge, some new contents should be added. Therefore, heputs forward the famous “i+1” language input principle. In the principle, “i”represents the current language competence of a learner, and “1” means languagematerials which are a little higher than the present stage of the learner. The input canneither be too much over the capacity of learner, i.e. “i+2”, nor be inferior or close tothe current competence, i.e. “i+0”（Krashen, 1985). In this way, on the basis of thepresent level, language learners can absorb language materials, improve learningskills and advance language competence through comprehensible input.
...........

2.2 Previous Studies on Classroom Questioning
Many scholars have classified classroom questions into different types.In the book The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Rod Ellis (1999) hadexplored the teacher’s classroom questioning, referring to the different classificationsof Barnes, Long & Sato, Koivukari, and Hakansson & Lindberg from differentperspectives.Barnes (1969) divided teachers’ class questions into four categories. That isfactual questions, reasoning questions, open questions and social questions. Factualquestions are the questions which refer to the specific time, place, people and events.The reasoning questions are mainly to solve those questions begin by “how” and“why”. Open questions refer to questions whose answers are not unique and can beinterpreted in a variety of ways. Social questions are questions that can control orinfluence students’ behaviors. What’s more, reasoning questioning can be furtherdivided into closed-questions (there is only one definite answer), open-questions(there is no certain answer) and pseudo-questions (there seems to have a variety ofanswers, but in fact only one answer).
..........

Chapter III Research Design.....22
3.1 Research Questions......... 22
3.2 Research Subjects....22
3.3 Instrument........23
3.4 Procedures....... 26
3.5 Data Analysis...........27
Chapter IV