纠错反馈策略与语言错误类型对学生纠错质量的交互影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.07.010

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本文研究反馈策略和语言错误类型如何影响学生改正四类语言错误(形态、选词、句法、语篇错误)的效果。通过有交互作用多因素方差分析、单因素方差分析的多重比较等统计方法,对43名大学生的一稿中共计169个教师反馈点和修改稿进行了分析。结果发现,反馈策略、语言错误类型、反馈策略和语言错误类型之间的交互作用这三方面都对学生纠错质量有显著的影响。事后分析显示,语言错误类型不同,纠错反馈策略效果不同;越是难于修改的错误类型,越需要明示的反馈策略。

关键词: 英语写作, 纠错反馈, 交互作用, 反馈策略, 语言错误类型

Abstract: This study aims to explore how language error types mediate the effect of different feedback strategies by analyzing a total of 169 feedback points of 43 college EFL student essays and subsequent student revisions. All Factorial Variance and Multiple comparisons show that feedback strategy, error type, and the interaction between feedback strategy and error type are all significant factors. Post-hoc analysis further reveals that different feedback strategies are needed to effectively help students correct the 4 types of language errors, namely morphological, lexical, syntactic, and discourse errors. The more difficult the errors are for the students to correct, the more explicit the feedback strategy should be.

中图分类号:

H319

吴炜. 纠错反馈策略与语言错误类型对学生纠错质量的交互影响[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(07): 47-52.

WU Wei. The Interactive Effect of Feedback Strategy and Language Error Type on the Students’ Revision in EFL Writing[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(07): 47-52.

参考文献

Ashwell, T. 2000. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3): 227-57.
Baralt, M. 2013. The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35(4): 689-725.
Bitchener, J., S. Young & D. Camerson. 2005. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3): 191-205.
Chan, A. Y.W. 2010. Toward a taxonomy of written errors: Investigation into the written errors of Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners [J]. TESOL Quarterly 44(2): 295-319.
Chandler, J. 2003. The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(3): 267-96.
Ellis, R. 2007. The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures [A]. In A. Mackey (ed). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 339-60.
Ellis, R. 2010. A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2): 335-49.
Ellis, R. ,S. Loewen & R. Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2): 339-68.
Fazio, L. L. 2001. The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(4): 235-49.
Ferris, D. R. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision [J]. TESOL Quarterly 31(2): 315-39.
Ferris, D. R. 1999. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1): 1-10.
Ferris, D. R. 2004. The “Grammar Correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?) [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1): 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. 2007. Preparing teachers to respond to student writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(3): 165-93.
Ferris, D. R. & B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3): 161-84.
Goldstein, D. 2004. Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(1): 63-80.
Guénette, D. 2007. Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(1): 40-53.
Guénette, D. & R. Lyster. 2013. Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers [J]. The Canadian Modern Language Review 69(2): 129-53
Hyland, K. & F. Hyland. 2010. Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction [A]. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-19.
Lalande, J. F. 1982. Reducing composition errors: An experiment [J]. Modern Language Journal 66(2): 140-49.
Lee, I. 1997. ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching [J]. System 25(4): 465-77.
Polio, C., C. Fleck, & N. Leder. 1998. “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(1): 43-68.
Schmidt, R. 1992. Awareness and second language acquisition [J]. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 206-26.
Schmidt, R. 2001. Attention [A]. In P. Robison (ed). Cognition and Second Language Instruction [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. 3-32.
Sheen, Y. 2007. The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles [J]. TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 255-83.
Sheen, Y. 2010. Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ELS classroom [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2): 203-34.Sheppard, K. 1992. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? [J]. RELC Journal 23(1): 103-10.
Shintani, M., R. Ellis &W. Suzuki. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures [J]. Language Learning 64(1): 103-31.
Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes [J]. Language Learning 46(2): 327-69.
Truscott, J. 2007. The effect of error correction on learner’s ability to write accurately [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(4): 255-72.
Van Beuningen, C. G., N.H. De Jong & F. Kuiken. 2012. Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing [J]. Language Learning 62(1): 1-41.
Xu, H. & R. Lyster. 2014. Differential effects of explicit form-focused instruction on morphosyntactic development [J]. Language Awareness 23(1-2): 107-22.
Yang, Y. & R. Lyster. 2010. Effects of Form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2): 235-63.
陈晓湘、李会娜.2009.教师书面修正性反馈对学生英语写作的影响[J].外语教学与研究41(5):351-58.
姜琳、陈锦.2014.书面纠正性反馈对英语冠词显性、隐性知识发展的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报6:48-56.
吴炜.2015.教师反馈焦点与反馈策略对英语写作修改效果的交互影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报38(2):85-93.
徐昉.2013.英语写作教学与研究[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
朱晔.2007.语写作教学中的反馈研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社.

[1]	张荔;. 学术英语写作课程设计与评估——基于留美中国学生的证据[J]. 当代外语研究, 2018, 18(03): 17-22+47+107.
[2]	刘兴华;纪小凌;余继英;. 以评促学——大学英语写作有效同伴反馈模式构建及促学效果研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(05): 9-15+109.
[3]	滕延江;Peter De Costa;. 学术英语写作与国际发表中的JARS要领与4C原则——Peter De Costa博士访谈[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(05): 48-53.
[4]	滕延江. 活动理论视角下的学术英语写作“四位一体”教学范式[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 53-58.
[5]	张乐, 刘芹. 中国理工科大学生英语写作语料库的设计、构建与前景[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 80-83.
[6]	杨永林. 经典与新锐辉映,理论与应用齐飞——英语写作要加强“一体化”与“本体化”研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(02): 3-7.
[7]	陆元雯;. 大学英语写作与大学英语和通识教育的关系研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(03): 31-33+39+93.
[8]	邓莉, 宋丹, 张燕, 刘勋,. 肥胖症相关基因rs9939609单核苷酸多态性和肥胖在多囊卵巢综合征中交互作用的研究[J]. 诊断学理论与实践, 2016, 15(03): 308-311.
[9]	滕延江;. “学术读写素养”范式与学术英语写作课程设计[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(01): 41-47.
[10]	王露芳;. 在线写作自动评改系统在高职英语写作教学中的反馈效度研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(01): 53-56.
[11]	龚嵘;. 大学学术英语写作教学的社会文化探究——学习者身份建构视角[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(06): 34-39.
[12]	胡茶娟. 对非英语专业大学生英语写作中词块运用的个案跟踪研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(08): 41-45.
[13]	刘立新;杨玉晨;. “起承转合”之起承转合——对比修辞视阈下汉语篇章模式研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2014, 14(04): 18-22+76.
[14]	龚嵘, 吴承钧. 研究型高校本科生EAP写作教学设计案例——关注大学教师教学设计能力的触发机制[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(08): 35-39.
[15]	袁芳远;. 围绕“重说式”纠错的讨论[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(10): 23-29+76.