Question

急急急！！哪位高手帮我翻译一下？

Theauthors attributed the change in discourse to thechange in organizational structure in the classroomand proposed that when teachers have to contendwith small groups, rather than one large group, theybecome involved in a complex process of linguisticchange as well so their language is more facilitativeand intimate as they reach out to their students.This attribution has enormous implications for how teachers teach because with it the authors providedevidence, for the first time, that if teachers are taught how to establish and use cooperativelearning in their classrooms, it affects how theyinteract with their students, and, given that studentsrespond positively to teachers who present aswarm, caring, and personal in their interactions, it has the potential to influence how students respondand learn.In a study that built on the findings of Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990), Gillies (2006)investigated whether there were differences in theinteractional styles of high school teachers whoimplemented cooperative learning as opposed tothose who implemented small-group work only,that is, the groups were not structured for coopera-tive learning. The study involved 26 middle-yearteachers from four high schools in Brisbane,Australia, who incorporated cooperative learningpedagogy into a unit of work (4–6-week period)once a term for three school terms (NB: all teachershad participated in a 2-day workshop on how toembed cooperative learning into their classroomcurricula). The six categories of teachers’ verbal interactionsthat were coded were originally identified by Hertz-Lazarowitz and Shachar (1990) and includedteacher control (i.e., instructing, lecturing, direct-ing); questions (i.e., short questions and questionsdesigned to elicit expected responses characterizedas initiation–response–feedback [IRF] exchanges(Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003)); discipline(i.e., reprimands directed at students); mediates(i.e., prompts, paraphrases to clarify understand-ings, challenges to thinking, scaffolds to linkinformation); encourages (i.e., praises students’efforts, encourages interactions among students);and maintenance interactions (i.e., deals withtechnical issues in carrying out the task).The results showed that of the teachers whoimplemented cooperative learning, 18.2% of thetotal interactions involved mediated-learning beha-viours or behaviours designed to promote thinking and foster learning,20.5% of their total interactionsinvolved questioning behaviours (i.e., open andclosed questions), and 6.3% involved disciplinary comments (i.e., behaviours designed to cautionstudents to behave appropriately).

Answer 1

theauthors的主要原因是改变话语中，以thechange在组织结构，在classroomand建议时，教师要contendwith小团体，而非一个大的集团， theybecome涉及在一个复杂的过程，对linguisticchange ，以及使他们的语言是更facilitativeand亲密，因为他们达到以他们的students.this归属有巨大的影响，教师如何教，因为它的作者providedevidence ，为第一次，如果教师讲授如何建立和使用cooperativelearning在他们的教室，它影响如何theyinteract与他们的学生，和鉴于studentsrespond积极的教师谁目前aswarm ，关怀，以及个人在其相互作用，它有可能影响学生如何respondand learn.in一份研究报告建立在结果赫兹- lazarowitz和shachar （ 1990年） ，机利士（ 2006年）调查是否有差异，在theinteractional作风，高中教师whoimplemented合作学习作为反对tothose谁实施小组的工作只是，那就是该团体并非结构为合作性的学习。该研究涉及26中yearteachers从四所高中在布里斯班，澳大利亚，谁注册的合作learningpedagogy到一个单位的工作（ 4 - 6周时期）的一次任期为3个学年的条款（注：所有teachershad参加了一个2 -为期一天的讲习班就如何toembed合作学习纳入其classroomcurricula ） 。六个类别的教师口头interactionsthat被编码原先所确定的赫兹- lazarowitz和shachar （ 1990年）和includedteacher控制（即，指示，宣讲，直接荷兰） ;问题（即，短期的问题和questionsdesigned征求预期响应characterizedas启动反应反馈[预扣]交易所（罗哈斯-德拉蒙德＆美世， 2003年） ） ;纪律（即，谴责针对学生） ;调解（即提示， paraphrases ，以澄清认识- ings ，挑战思维，棚架，以linkinformation ） ;鼓励（即，赞扬students'efforts ，鼓励学生之间的相互作用） ;和维修的相互作用（即，涉及withtechnical问题，在贯彻落实的任务） 。结果表明，该教师whoimplemented合作学习， 18.2 ％的thetotal互动参与介导的学习beha - viours或行为旨在促进思想和树立学习， 20.5 ％ ，其总interactionsinvolved质疑的行为（即，开放andclosed问题） ，和6.3 ％ ，涉及纪律处分的意见（即，行为旨在cautionstudents的行为适当） 。

Answer 2

天呐，太多了~~~~~

Answer 3

你这得1000分才有人干