【作者】 李文昭；

【导师】 胡学文；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2013， 硕士

【摘要】 对于很多英语作为第二语言的学习者来说,写作一直是英语学习中的一个难题。许多国外学者提出以书面修正性反馈(WCF)的方式来提高学生的写作准确性。许多国外研究也表明通过一定时间的书面修正性反馈,学习者的写作准确性有不同程度的提高,但在中国环境下的书面修正性反馈的实证研究仍然不足。此外,关于哪种类型的书面修正性反馈更有效的话题也一直是有争议的。因此,本研究通过中国高职高专课堂,探讨两种不同类型的直接书面修正性反馈对学生写作中的一系列错误类型的有效性。本研究调查研究的问题如下：(1)两种类型的直接书面修正性反馈(直接纠错与直接纠错加元语言解释)对提高学生的写作准确性是否有效?如果有效,哪些类型的反馈更好?(2)两种类型的直接书面修正性反馈对于不同类型的错误的影响是否不同?(3)学生对于不同类型的教师反馈持什么样的态度?60名来自阜阳职业技术学院的学生参与了此次研究。通过前测,他们被分为三组——两个实验组和一个对照组。每组所接受的书面反馈类型各不相同。本研究历时九周,在此期间,每个学生完成了7篇不同主题的记叙文。在第九周的写作任务结束时,研究者进行了一个问卷调查用于收集学生对书面修正反馈的态度及偏好。本研究有两个数据来源：来自七篇作文的数据和来自问卷调查的数据。数据用SPSS16.0统计软件进行了分析。本研究的主要结果总结如下：(1)两种类型的直接书面修正反馈都能够有效地提高学生的写作准确性。(2)与直接纠错相比,直接纠错加元语言解释能够更加显著提高学生的写作准确性。(3)两种不同类型的直接书面修正性反馈对于不同类型的错误影响也不同。直接纠错加元语言解释能更有效的提高学生英语写作中的语法,语义以及拼写,标点方面的准确性。(4)大多数学生认为老师的书面反馈有助于提高他们的英语写作的准确性。在两种类型的反馈方式中,他们更喜欢直接纠错加元语言解释这种纠错方式。本研究为直接书面修正性反馈能否提高学生写作准确性这一问题上提供了一些经验证据。此外,本研究对于如何在中国高职课堂中改善英语写作教学也提供了一些教学启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 Writing has always been considered as a demanding task in English learning to many English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) learners. Written corrective feedback (WCF) is thus proposed by many western researchers to improve students’writing accuracy. Various studies conducted abroad have proved that written corrective feedback would facilitate learners’competence in writing, but empirical studies of written corrective feedback in Chinese context was limited. Moreover, which type of WCF is more effective has always been a controversial question. Thus the present study aims to explore the effectiveness of two different types of direct written corrective feedback on students’writing accuracy on a range of error types in the real Chinese classroom setting. The study aims to investigate the following research questions:(1) Are the two types of feedback (direct error correction only and direct correction plus meta-linguistic explanation) effective in improving students’writing accuracy? If yes, which type of feedback is better?(2) Are there any differential effects of the feedback types across different linguistic error categories?(3) What are the students’attitudes towards teacher feedback?The60participants were from Fuyang Vocational and Technical College. They were assigned to three equal groups after a pretest:two experimental groups and a control group. Each group was given different feedback types. The study lasted for nine weeks, during which each of the students was required to write seven compositions of the same genre on different topics. At the end of the ninth week, a questionnaire was administered to collect students’attitude toward the feedback that the teacher had adopted, thus two types of data were collected:data from the compositions and data from the questionnaires. The quantitative data were analyzed with SPSS16.0. The major findings of the present study are briefly summarized as follows:(1) Both two types of direct WCF are effective in improving students’writing accuracy.(2) Direct correction plus meta-linguistic explanation can lead to more significant improvements in students’writing compared with direct error correction only.(3) Differential effects of the two types direct WCF on different error categories are found. Direct correction plus meta-linguistic explanation can improve students’ writing accuracy on grammar, spelling, punctuation and sentence meaning expression.(4) Most students find teacher’s feedback helpful in improving their English writing accuracy and of the two types of feedback, they prefer direct correction plus meta-linguistic explanation.The present study provides some empirical evidence about the effect of direct written corrective feedback on the improvement of students’writing accuracy. It also gives some pedagogical implications on how to improve the teaching of English writing in Chinese vocational and technical college classroom.更多还原