小学生口头与书面解说语言之比较

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Anne Blackstock-Bernstein, Amy Woodbridge, A. Bailey
{"title":"小学生口头与书面解说语言之比较","authors":"Anne Blackstock-Bernstein, Amy Woodbridge, A. Bailey","doi":"10.1086/718077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Students must use oral and written explanations to demonstrate their grasp of academic content, but little is known about the progression of elementary students’ explanatory language, particularly oral language. The current study of 512 explanations produced by 128 third- through sixth-grade students examines whether children’s oral explanations differ from their written explanations in terms of vocabulary, sentence structure, and features of discourse. Students were asked to explain academic and nonacademic tasks in both modes (oral and written). Multilevel ordered logistic regression controlled for type of task, grade level, English learner status, and gender and examined interaction effects with mode. Analyses found that students’ oral explanations demonstrated more sophisticated sentence structure and greater coherence/cohesion than their written explanations. Interaction effects revealed several contextual factors that play a key role in understanding differences between the two modes. We discuss implications for instruction, assessment, and future research.","PeriodicalId":48010,"journal":{"name":"Elementary School Journal","volume":"122 1","pages":"315 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Elementary Students’ Explanatory Language across Oral and Written Modes\",\"authors\":\"Anne Blackstock-Bernstein, Amy Woodbridge, A. Bailey\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/718077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Students must use oral and written explanations to demonstrate their grasp of academic content, but little is known about the progression of elementary students’ explanatory language, particularly oral language. The current study of 512 explanations produced by 128 third- through sixth-grade students examines whether children’s oral explanations differ from their written explanations in terms of vocabulary, sentence structure, and features of discourse. Students were asked to explain academic and nonacademic tasks in both modes (oral and written). Multilevel ordered logistic regression controlled for type of task, grade level, English learner status, and gender and examined interaction effects with mode. Analyses found that students’ oral explanations demonstrated more sophisticated sentence structure and greater coherence/cohesion than their written explanations. Interaction effects revealed several contextual factors that play a key role in understanding differences between the two modes. We discuss implications for instruction, assessment, and future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Elementary School Journal\",\"volume\":\"122 1\",\"pages\":\"315 - 340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Elementary School Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/718077\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Elementary School Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/718077","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学生必须使用口头和书面解释来展示他们对学术内容的掌握,但对小学生解释语言,特别是口头语言的发展知之甚少。这项由128名三至六年级学生制作的512种解释的研究考察了儿童的口头解释与书面解释在词汇、句子结构和话语特征方面是否不同。学生被要求以两种模式(口头和书面)解释学术和非学术任务。多层次有序逻辑回归控制了任务类型、年级水平、英语学习者状况和性别,并检验了与模式的交互效应。分析发现,与书面解释相比,学生的口头解释表现出更复杂的句子结构和更大的连贯性。互动效应揭示了几个语境因素,这些因素在理解两种模式之间的差异方面发挥着关键作用。我们讨论了对教学、评估和未来研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Elementary Students’ Explanatory Language across Oral and Written Modes
Students must use oral and written explanations to demonstrate their grasp of academic content, but little is known about the progression of elementary students’ explanatory language, particularly oral language. The current study of 512 explanations produced by 128 third- through sixth-grade students examines whether children’s oral explanations differ from their written explanations in terms of vocabulary, sentence structure, and features of discourse. Students were asked to explain academic and nonacademic tasks in both modes (oral and written). Multilevel ordered logistic regression controlled for type of task, grade level, English learner status, and gender and examined interaction effects with mode. Analyses found that students’ oral explanations demonstrated more sophisticated sentence structure and greater coherence/cohesion than their written explanations. Interaction effects revealed several contextual factors that play a key role in understanding differences between the two modes. We discuss implications for instruction, assessment, and future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Elementary School Journal
Elementary School Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Elementary School Journal has served researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners in the elementary and middle school education for over one hundred years. ESJ publishes peer-reviewed articles dealing with both education theory and research and their implications for teaching practice. In addition, ESJ presents articles that relate the latest research in child development, cognitive psychology, and sociology to school learning and teaching. ESJ prefers to publish original studies that contain data about school and classroom processes in elementary or middle schools while occasionally publishing integrative research reviews and in-depth conceptual analyses of schooling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信