Thank you for paying attention to "Yongda English"! Study on the impact of consultation-induced behaviors of outstanding high school English teachers on students' response thinking levels Chu Shiyao Luo Xiaojie Abstract: This article uses the research methods of classroom observa

Thank you for following "Yongda English"!

Research on the impact of consultation-induced behaviors of reading class of outstanding high school English teachers on students' response thinking level

Chu Shiyao Luo Xiaojie

Abstract: This article uses the research methods of classroom observation and conversation analysis to conduct quantitative statistics and qualitative analysis of consultation-induced behaviors of an excellent high school English teacher in reading class. The study found that in the distribution of negotiation triggering behavior, this excellent teacher used additional questions the most, followed by providing clues, supervising learning and confirming verification, while clarification requests, corrections and corrections are fewer, and the least one is understanding verification. Further research has found that different negotiation-induced behaviors can have an impact on students' response thinking levels, but the effects of various behaviors vary. Teachers often use multiple negotiation-induced behaviors in a consultation interaction. Based on the above research findings, it is recommended that teachers choose and combine various consultation-induced behaviors to gradually improve students' response thinking levels; guide students to expose the implicit thinking levels and consolidate students' high-level response thinking.

Keywords: Negotiation triggers behavior; student response; thinking level

1. Introduction

Ellis (1999) believes that in most cases, whether negotiation can successfully cause students to modify output depends on the nature of the negotiation triggers behavior. Language is a tool of thinking. While negotiating behaviors affect students' oral output, it will also have an impact on students' thinking level. However, by searching the papers related to domestic consultation and interaction in the past 20 years, it was found that most of my country's research is based on foreign theoretical frameworks, exploring the distribution of consultation and interaction types in the classroom, and quantitatively analyzing its impact on students' oral output ( Liu Xuehui , Qian Weiwei, 2007; Fan Shudan, Luo Xiaojie, 2018; Zhou Xin, 2020), and not further explored its impact on students' thinking level. In addition, classroom observations found that many teachers lack the awareness of effective consultation and interaction, and consultation causes too single behavior or improper use, resulting in poor consultation and interaction (Fan Shudan, Luo Xiaojie, 2018), and the effect on improving students' thinking level is not obvious. In view of this, this study further analyzes its impact on students' response thinking level based on quantitative statistics of the consultation-induced behavior in a reading class of an outstanding high school English teacher, providing a reference for high school English teachers to optimize consultation-induced behavior and improve the consultation interaction effect.

2. Thinking level of negotiation triggering behavior and student response

(I) Negotiation triggering behavior

This article draws on Boulima (1999)'s negotiation triggering behavior classification framework for research. The original framework includes 27 kinds of negotiation-induced behaviors, and the initiating subject is not limited to teachers, and some behaviors can be initiated by students. According to the actual situation of the selected English reading class and the needs of this research, this paper adopts eight behaviors that trigger teachers and students' consultation and interaction, and all of them are statistically analyzed with teachers as the initiator, including adding questions, supervising learning, providing clues, triggering corrections, understanding verification, correction, confirmation verification and clarification requests. Among them, additional questions refer to teachers to ask students to answer further questions through example, display or reference questions; urging students to repeat their questions or students' previous answers, or use closed words (such as "go on", "and- ?" "or- ?”, etc.) Encourage students to encourage students to continuously output oral language; provide clues to teachers to help students answer questions by providing information related to content or form; trigger corrections to teachers to prompt the location of the error by updating and repeating errors in students’ answers or only repeating the correct part of students’ words to guide students to self-correct the errors in discourse or content; understanding and verification means teachers to check whether students understand their own classroom discourse or instructions; correction means teachers to directly correct students when students understand or express problems, specifically to others help to correct rather than self-correct; confirmation and verification means teachers to check whether they correctly understand students’ previous answers; clarification requests to teachers ask students to explain their answers again and provide further information.

(II) The thinking level of students' response

is used for open-ended problems and is combined with quantitative evaluation and qualitative examination (Li Jia, Wu Weining, 2009). This study determines the thinking level of students' response based on the observable learning outcome structure classification theory (structure of the observed learning outcome, hereinafter referred to as SOLO classification evaluation theory) proposed by Biggs and Collis (1982). This theory divides students' response levels to a specific problem into five levels: pre-structure, single-point structure, multi-point structure, correlation structure and expansion abstract structure. Among them, front-structure, single-point structure, and multi-point structure belong to the low-level thinking level, and correlation structure and expansion abstract structure belong to the high-level thinking level (Biggs & Collis, 1982). The answer to the structure before

is manifested as avoiding the question, not knowing or guessing randomly; simply repeating the question; unable to form a complete logic and jump to individual irrelevant points based on your feelings. The answer to a single point structure only provides one related material or one related point; the answer is not consistent and will close quickly, but it is generally correct. The answer to a multi-point structure can list several points related to the question, but cannot establish a connection between them. The answers to the associated structure can summarize and explain isolated points without consistency in the multi-point structure and establish a connection between them; students will form an affirmative answer but are still limited to what they have learned. Answers that expand the abstract structure can combine all relevant materials, including those not provided to students, into an abstract assumption. At this level, students tend to give open answers.

3. Analysis of the impact of teacher consultation-induced behavior on students' response thinking level

(I) Research and design

This study takes Teacher X's high school English reading class in the third "Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou" famous teachers' English effective teaching observation activity in 2019, and the course lasts about 50 minutes. Through the negotiation and interaction between teachers and students, we explored:

(1) What is the distribution of different types of negotiation triggered behaviors in the English reading class of this high school?

(2) What impact does different types of negotiation trigger behavior have on students’ response thinking levels?

This article uses the research methods of classroom observation and conversation analysis. First watch the teaching video, and interpret the teaching text with supporting courseware and network resources. During the viewing process, mark and intercept the interactive clips of teachers and students for transcription. After the transcription is completed, the collected discourse fragments are classified according to the negotiation-induced behavior, and experienced teachers are invited to analyze the corpus text together to determine the level of thinking in which students respond, thereby increasing the reliability of the research.

(II) Research results and analysis

1. Analysis of the distribution of behaviors triggered by different types of negotiation

0 This study is based on Boulima (1999)'s negotiation induced behavior classification framework, combined with teaching videos, and quantitative statistics are carried out on the research samples. The results are shown in Figure 3.2.1.1.

Figure 3.2.1.1 shows the distribution of various types of negotiation-induced behaviors. The number of uses is sorted from more to less: additional questions (25 times), providing clues (17 times), supervising learning (12 times), confirming verification (9 times), clarification requests (4 times), corrections (3 times), triggering corrections (1 time), and at least understanding verification (0 times).

2. Analysis of the impact of different types of negotiation-induced behaviors on students' response thinking levels

The 19 teacher-student consultation interaction fragments will be collected in this study. The students' response thinking levels are classified according to the SOLO classification evaluation theory. The specific distribution of each thinking level is shown in Table 3.2.2.1:

From Table 3.2.2.1, it can be seen that after teachers implement consultation-induced behaviors, most of the students' response thinking levels are still concentrated in low-level thinking, especially single-point structures and multi-point structures, accounting for 36.23% and 28.99% respectively. After the teacher implemented confirmation and verification, the success rate of students' high-level thinking responses accounted for the highest proportion, reaching 44.44%; followed by additional questions, with the success rate reaching 24%; urging learning and providing clues can also successfully trigger students' high-level thinking responses, with the success rate being 8.33% and 5.88% respectively; while other negotiations caused behaviors failed to cause students' high-level thinking responses.In addition, it is difficult to cause expansion of the thinking level of abstract structure, and only additional questions and urging learning trigger students' responses at this thinking level. Further observation and comparison found that although additional questions, urging learning and providing clues can successfully trigger students' high-level thinking responses, they are more likely to lead to pre-structural thinking level responses than other negotiation-induced behaviors.

3. Analysis of the impact of different types of negotiation-induced behaviors on students' response thinking levels

In a teacher-student consultation interaction, teachers often use multiple negotiation-induced behaviors to promote students' oral output, and the changes in students' thinking levels are reflected in each discourse modification. The following is a detailed analysis of how different types of negotiation trigger behaviors affect students' response thinking levels based on the interaction clips of teacher-student consultation.

Case 1:

This teacher-student interaction clip is selected from this quality reading class Wake Me Up When September Ends (6′01″-6′31″). In the pre-reading session, the teacher asked the students how they would react when they saw the boy in the picture through the form of picture import. The specific transcription information is as follows:

1T: How would you react? What about you? 2S1: I will feel very strange. [Single point structure]

3T: You will feel strange, you will find this boy strange. (Confirm verification)

4S1: Yes. [Single point structure]

5T: And you will feel? (Add question)

6S1: Surprised. [Multipoint structure]

7T: Surprised. And what would you do? (Add a question)

8S1: Um, um, I, I want, I, I want looking at him. [Multipoint structure]

9T: You want to look at him. (Revised) You want to figure out how strange the appearance is. (Confirmation verification)

10S1: Yes. [Association structure]

0 After the teacher asked a question, the student used "I will feel very strange" to explain his reaction, and only gave an attitude of "strange", and the thinking level was in a single point structure. At this time, the teacher initiated a confirmation verification (3T), explained the student's answers, and obtained the student's confirmation (4S1), but the student's answers were quickly closed, no new information was output, and the thinking level did not change. Then, the teacher added questions twice in a row (5T and 7T), asking students to give new emotional reactions and further explain what actions will be done in the face of the boy in the picture. After the first question is added, the student gave a new response "surprised" (6S1); after the second question, the student replied "I want looking at him", adding the information point of what to do in addition to expressing emotions (8S1). It can be seen that the student's response involves wider and wider scope, but he has not yet established a connection between front and back answers independently. The information points are isolated, and the thinking level is improved from a single-point structure to a multi-point structure. In "8S1", the student's answers were grammatical errors. The teacher implemented a correction in "9T", pointing out that it should be "want to look at him", and helping the student establish a connection between the previous and subsequent answers, giving the statement that he wanted to see the boy's appearance clearly because of surprise, and initiated a confirmation and verification. The teacher's content after the promotion belongs to the relevant structure. It can be seen from "10S1" that students agree with the teacher's point of view, so the thinking level of students' thinking converges after being upgraded to the teacher, approaching or equivalent to the thinking level of the associated structure, and the students' response thinking level has been improved on the original basis.

Case 2:

This teacher-student interaction clip is selected from this high-quality reading class 6′39″-7′07″. The teacher asked another student how he would react when he saw the boy in the picture.The specific transcription information is as follows:

1T: What would you do? If you saw a boy looking like this, walking towards you.

2S2: I will be cautious. [Single-point structure]

3T: Um, you’ll be cautious. What do you mean cautious? (Clarification request)

4S2: I may stay, I may stay away from him. [Multi-point structure]

5T: OK, being cautious means you will stay away from him. Why? Why? (Add a question)

6S2: Because he looks strange. [Associated structure]

7T: Because, just because he looks strange. Maybe extremely strange. OK, sit down please.

0 After the teacher asked a question, the student replied "I will be cautious". "cautious" is just an emotional attitude, that is, the student provides a correlation point and the thinking level is in a single point structure. At this time, the teacher recounted the student's answer and initiated a clarification request (3T), asking the student to explain what the response "cautious" means. In "4S2", the student said that "cautious" means that he will stay away from the boy in the picture, adding new information to supplement the previous answers, but did not establish a logical connection between the first and last answers, and the thinking level rose to a multi-point structure. In the "5T", the teacher adds questions and asks students why they are cautious and want to stay away. The student gave an explanation of the reason (6S2), indicating that it was because the boy in the picture looked strange and linked his behavioral reactions to the cause, reaching the thinking level of the correlation structure.

Case 3:

This teacher-student interaction clip is selected from this high-quality reading class 20′55″-21′56″. During the reading session, the teacher discusses the meaning of the text topic with students. The specific transcription information is as follows:

1T: What does it mean?

2S3: Um, he thinks the August is a ...【Pre-structure】

3T: Uh- huh, August is his name. But here September is a month where students begin their school. Uh- huh. He hopes that this month could... (Provide clues)

4S3: Um, um, go, going by, um, goes by quickly. Went by quickly. [Single-point structure]

5T: OK, he hopes that this month could go by quickly. (Confirm verification)

6S3: Yes. [Single-point structure]

7T: And did he want to stay awake in this month? (Add issue)

8S3: No. [Multi-point structure]

9T: He wants to? (Add issue)

10S3: He wants to, um... [Pre-structure]

11T: Wake me up when September finishes, when September ends. (Providing clues) What does he want to do in September? (Super guidance)

12S3: He wants to sleep.【Multipoint structure】

13T: Yes, he wants to sleep through this month. Because this month is very... (Add a question)

14S3: Awful. 【Affiliated structure】

After the teacher asked a question, the students were unable to make the exact answer (2S3), and they mistakenly thought that "August" in the text is the same as "September", both representing the month, and the answer content tends to be irrelevant points, so the thinking level is in the pre-structure. So the teacher provided a clue (3T), prompting the student that "August" is the protagonist's name, and "September" is the month of school opening, and giving the sentence "He hopes that this month could..." to help the student answer. Based on the teacher's tips, the students gave the correct correlation point "Went by quickly" (4S3), and the thinking level was upgraded from the former structure to the single-point structure. In "7T", the teacher added a question to ask the student's protagonist whether he wanted to stay awake in September. The student gave a negative answer (8S3). At this time, the students' understanding of the title of the article includes two independent information points: the protagonist hopes that September will pass soon and does not want to stay awake in September. The thinking level is improved to a multi-point structure due to teacher guidance. Then, the teacher continued to add questions (9T) on this basis, asking the student protagonist not to stay awake and what he wanted to do, and the student could not give an answer. He simply repeated the teacher's question (10S3), and the thinking level returned to the pre-structure. In "11T", the teacher read the question, provided clues through the keyword "wake me up", and repeated his own question, that is, he used supervision to further guide students to give answers.On this basis, the students gave the answer "He wants to sleep" (12S3), but they still did not establish a connection between the previous and subsequent answers, and the thinking level is in a multi-point structure. Then the teacher added a question (13T) to guide the students to give the reasons why the protagonist hopes that September will pass quickly and does not want to stay awake. With the previous preparation, the student came up with the related answer (14S3). Because September is bad in the protagonist's eyes, he hopes to pass it quickly. At this time, the student's thinking level has risen to an associated structure.

4. Characteristics of behavior triggered by teachers' consultation and their impact on the level of students' response thinking

By statistics, observation and analysis of the two aspects of the distribution of behavior triggered by consultation in reading class of an excellent high school English teacher, and the impact of various types of behavior triggered by consultation on students' response thinking hierarchy, the research findings are as follows:

(I) Characteristics of behavior distribution of behavior triggered by consultation in reading class of an excellent high school English teacher

Add questions, provide clues and supervise learning are the three most commonly used negotiation and triggered behaviors by this excellent teacher. The main purpose of these three behaviors is to promote students' oral output. It can be seen that excellent teachers will consciously and appropriately use consultation to trigger behaviors in their interactions with students, and while helping students continue to output oral language, they will improve students' response thinking levels. The teacher also uses confirmation verification and verification relatively frequently. Confirmation verification is to help teachers confirm whether they correctly understand the consultation-induced behavior of students' answers. It can be seen that excellent teachers attach importance to students' views and are good at creating a good interactive atmosphere. Although the outstanding teacher used clarification requests, corrections and triggered corrections, it used them less often. The common point of these three negotiation-induced behaviors is that they attach importance to the accuracy of students' expressions. It can be seen that when excellent teachers interact with students, they mainly encourage students to express their thoughts and content, followed by the accuracy of language form. This excellent teacher did not use understanding verification, and the role of understanding verification is to check whether students understand the teacher's classroom discourse or instructions. The reason why the negotiation causes behavior is related to the teacher's personal habits and the overall quality of the students. Due to space limitations, there will be no in-depth discussion.

(II) The impact of the consultation of reading class of outstanding high school English teachers on students' response thinking level

The most commonly used additional questions, clues and guidance of this excellent teacher can successfully trigger students' high-level thinking response. However, during the interaction process, these three behaviors also lead to students returning to the pre-structural thinking level. Confirmation verification with relatively high frequency of use is the negotiation-induced behavior that triggers students' high-level thinking response success rate, but under this behavior, the improvement of students' thinking level is implicit, that is, students do not express their own thinking level through oral output, but reflect it by agreeing with the teacher's expression. This kind of improvement in thinking level is not stable enough or even unreal, and it is easily broken by teachers' behaviors such as adding problems. In addition, the outstanding teacher initiated three corrections in total, but only once received a response from the students. It can be seen that directly correcting the students' answers cannot have a good interactive effect. Overall, in a consultation and interaction, teachers often need to use a variety of consultation-induced behaviors to promote students' continuous oral output, and the improvement of thinking level is also reflected through the quality and quantity of students' oral output.

5. Optimize teacher consultation-induced behavior and promote the development of students' thinking ability

Based on the above conclusion, in order to help English teachers reflect and optimize classroom consultation-induced behavior and improve classroom interaction effect, this article gives the following suggestions:

(I) Preferred negotiation-induced behavior types, promote students' thinking level to improve

Just the right negotiation-induced behavior will help promote the improvement of students' thinking level and ensure the quality of negotiation interaction. If used improperly, it will cause students to be at low-level thinking for a long time, it will be difficult for them to make progress, and even the thinking level will develop in reverse.Teachers need to optimize the types of behaviors that are initiated by negotiation, reduce the use of direct correction behaviors, and try to guide students to self-correct; use understanding verification appropriately to monitor students' learning status; pay attention to maintaining students' right to speak when using confirmation verification; use supervision or provide clues to help students answer when students are unable to organize language; use additional questions to promote students' in-depth thinking; use clarification requests to verify students' answers and trigger students' self-explanation.

(II) Guide the implicit thinking level to be apparent, consolidate students' high-level thinking

Students' initial answers are often at low-level thinking. In order to help students improve their thinking level, teachers will use confirmation verification to reorganize language for students, and then ask whether the students agree. In this case, students' thinking levels will converge to the level of thinking after being improved to the teacher, but in the implicit stage, if students are not encouraged to express themselves through oral output, they will not be able to consolidate high-level thinking and will not achieve good thinking training results. Similarly, after using other consultations to trigger behaviors and help students form good thinking logic, teachers should once again encourage students to organize their ideas and output language to consolidate the previous thinking level development.

(III) Optimize the combination of various types of negotiation and triggering behaviors to help students gradually improve their thinking level

In a negotiation and interaction, teachers should be good at combining and using various types of negotiation and triggering behaviors. Do not frequently use one behavior according to personal habits. If adding questions to the same student many times, it is easy to cause students to confusing their thinking due to being too nervous and stop language output; providing a large number of clues at once will also lead to students being unable to absorb effective information and organize their answers. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize and combine various types of negotiation and trigger behaviors based on the specific situation of the students.

6. Conclusion

This article observes and analyzes the negotiation-induced behavior in the reading class of an excellent high school English teacher, and under the SOLO classification evaluation theory, students' classroom answers are classified at the thinking level, and explores the impact of different negotiation-induced behaviors on students' thinking levels. The study found that in the distribution of types of behaviors caused by negotiation, the excellent teacher used append problems much more times than other behaviors, but did not use understanding verification. Further research has found that different negotiation-induced behaviors can have an impact on students' response thinking levels, but the effects of various behaviors vary. Teachers often use multiple negotiation-induced behaviors in a consultation interaction. Based on the above research findings, this article puts forward three suggestions: teachers should choose the types of negotiation-induced behaviors; guide students to expose the implicit thinking levels; and optimize the combination of various types of negotiation-induced behaviors.

References

［1］Biggs, J., &Collis, K. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy ［M］. New York: Academic Press, 1982.

［2］Boulima, J. A. Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse ［M］. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing, 1999.

［3］Ellis R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition［M］. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.

［4］Fan Shudan, Luo Xiaojie. Analysis of the influence of negotiation interaction in middle school English teachers on students’ immediate oral output［J］. Research on Foreign Language Teaching in Basic Education, 2018(8).

［5］Li Jia, Wu Weining. SOLO classification theory and teaching evaluation concept［J］. Educational Measurement and Evaluation (Theoretical Edition), 2009(2).

［6］Liu Xuehui, Qian Weiwei. Negotiation interaction and instant output: A micro-exploration of classroom language learning [J]. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching, 2007(11).

[7] Zhou Xin. Research on the impact of teacher-student consultation interaction on students' oral output in junior high school English classroom [D]. Inner Mongolia Normal University, 2020.

A Study on the Influence of an Excellent Teacher’s Application of Negotiation Initiation Acts on Students’ Response Thinking Levels in Senior High School English Reading Class

Chu Shiyao Luo Xiaojie

Abstract: By means of classroom observation and conversation analysis, this study focuses on the influence of different types of negotiation initiative acts on students’ response thinking levels. The findings are as follows: For the distribution of negotiation initiative acts, the proportion of elicitation is the highest, followed by clue, prompt and confirmation check; the proportion of clarification request, repair and repair - initiative is relatively lower, and there is no comprehension check in the observed lesson. Further research finds that different negotiation initiative acts all can influence the students’ response thinking levels, but the influence of various acts is different, and the teacher uses a combination of these acts in one negotiated interaction. Based on the above research findings, three suggestions are offered: teachers should use the negotiation initiative acts properly; help students express their implicit thoughts, and optimize the combination of various negotiation initiative acts.

Key words: negotiation initiative acts; students’ responding; thinking levels

(This article was first published in "Research on Foreign Language Teaching in Basic Education" 2021 Issue 7)