پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,500 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,086,382 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,189,715 |
بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری در مهارت نگارش زبان دوم: آیا شبه بازخورد کافیست؟ | ||
| پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 4، شماره 1، فروردین 1393، صفحه 147-166 اصل مقاله (322.47 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2014.61651 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مبین خانلرزاده* 1؛ مجید نعمتی2 | ||
| 1مربی، دانشگاه امام خمینی | ||
| 2دانشیار، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در تلاش برای بررسی اثربخشی روشی نوین برای رسیدگی به خطاهای گرامری نوشتاری زبان آموزان، مطالعه ی حاضر اثرات بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری متمرکز غیرمستقیم و نمونه ی درونداد برجسته شده ی انگیزشی (شبه بازخورد )را بر دقت زبان آموزان در استفاده از حروف تعریف زبان انگلیسی بررسی می کند. با استفاده از سه کلاس دست نخورده در سطح متوسط متشکل از 46 دانش آموز، سه گروه تشکیل داده شد: (1) گروه بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری،(2) گروه شبه بازخورد (یک نمونه ی نوشتاری که ساختار مورد نظر آن برجسته شده است)، و (3) گروه کنترل. در حالی که هیچ تفاوتی در اثر بخشی بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری و شبه بازخورد پیدا نشد، گروه های آزمایشی در پس آزمون های فوری و تاخیری از گروه کنترل بهتر عمل کردند. نتایج نشان می دهد، با توجه به عملی بودن بالای شبه بازخورد، این روش می تواند جایگزین مناسبی برای بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری به منظور تصحیح خطاهای دستوری باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| بازخورد تصحیحی نوشتاری؛ تصحیح خطا؛ خطاهای دستوری؛ مهارت نگارش؛ نمونه ی درونداد برجسته شده ی انگیزشی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing: Does SEMI-Feedback Suffice? | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mobin Khanlarzadeh2؛ | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| In an attempt to investigate other options to address learners' written grammatical errors, the present study compared the effects of indirect focused written corrective feedback (WCF) with sample enhanced motivating input (SEMI) on the accuracy with which EFL learners used English articles in narrative writing. Using three intact intermediate classes totaling 46 students, three groups were formed: (1) a WCF group who received indirect focused WCF along with written metalinguistic information, (2) a SEMI group who received SEMI-feedback (a writing sample the focused structures of which are enhanced) along with written metalinguistic information, and (3) a control group who received no corrective feedback. While no difference in effectiveness was found between WCF and SEMI, the experimental groups outperformed the control group on the immediate and delayed posttests. The results suggest that, given its high practicality, SEMI-feedback can be considered a reliable alternative to focused WCF for addressing students' grammatical errors. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Error Correction, Grammatical errors, Sample enhanced motivating input, Writing, Written corrective feedback | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع Amrhein H.R., & Nassaji H. (2010) Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied linguistics 13, 95-127. Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum, 38(4), 20-24. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217. Brown, R. (1973). A first language; the early stages. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140. Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491-498. Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348. Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 57-58. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jean, G., & D. Simard (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1988). Teaching grammar: Why bother? California English, 3(3), 8. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413 – 468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217-243. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4), 556-569. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 471-484). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122. Truscott, J. (2004). Dialogue: Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343. Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 59-60. Truscott, J. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 329-335. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 747 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 676 |
||