论教师反馈在学生对混合虚拟语气语言形式注意中的作用
|
摘要
Swain所提出的输出假设理论认为，语言输出具有三种功能：注意功能，检验假设功能和元语言学功能。其中，语言输出提示学习者注意的功能已引起了越来越多的应用语言学学者的关注。研究者在印证注意功能的研究中发现，语言输出可以帮助学习者注意到自己中介语中的问题。Qi和Lapkin(2001)在最近的研究中提出在当前对语言输出的注意功能的研究中，通过何种方法提高学习者注意的质量是一个亟待解决的问题。
有学者认为反馈可以影响学习者对语言形式的注意，但对教师反馈的作用却存在争论。本文作者认为教师反馈是一种提高学习者注意的有效方法，教师可以通过向学习者提供详尽的反馈来提高学习者注意的质量。论文以前人对语言输出的注意功能和教师反馈的研究为基础，将学习者输出的语言形式是否正确作为衡量注意质量的标准，探讨了以下问题：(1)教师反馈对学习者注意的质量产生何种影响?(2)如果教师向学习者提供不同类型的反馈，是否会相应地导致学习者对语言形式的注意在质量上产生显著的差异?
在日常教学过程中，作者发现学生在使用混合虚拟语气时常常将其和虚拟语气的过去形式相混淆，因此在本实验中以混合虚拟语气作为语言形式的考察对象。经过语法测试和写作测试，筛选出两个试验组(总计83人)。研究者要求他们就同一题目进行三次写作。写作任务要求受试者在写作时使用混合虚拟语气的形式。第一次写作由受试者按照写作要求自己独立进行写作，然后教师向受试者提供范文，受试者依照范文提供的提示进行第二次写作；之后，教师分别对两组的作文中存在的问题(包括混合虚拟语气的语言形式和其它语言形式)分别施以详尽的和简略的反馈。受试者再根据教师的反馈在第二稿的基础上进行修改，写出第三稿。在分析语法测试和写作测试的数据时，采用了t检验；在分析受试者的第二稿和第三稿数据时，采用了曼—惠特尼U检验及符号秩次检验。实验结果表明：(1)详尽的教师反馈和简略的教师反馈均提高了学习者的注意质量，而且两种不同类型的教师反馈使学生对语言形式注意的质量产生不同程度的促进作用；(2)在详细的教师反馈的影响下，学习者注意的质量明显高于受简略的教师反馈所影响的学习者。这一实验结果肯定了在语言教学中教师就学习者存在问题的语言形式给予反馈的积极作用。本文最后讨论了研究中存在的问题，建议就教师反馈对学习者的作用做进一步的研究。
Many applied linguistic researchers have showed great concern to the noticing function of output since Swain puts forward the Output Hypothesis. According to the Output Hypothesis, output has three functions: the noticing function, hypothesis testing function and metalinguistic function. Researches on the noticing function find that output facilitates learners in noticing the problems in their interlanguage. Qi and Lapkin (2001) advocate in their study that how to improve the noticing quality is a question, which has to be addressed immediately.
Previous studies have revealed that learners' noticing can be facilitated by feedback, but views on teacher feedback are rather contentious. The author of this dissertation holds that teacher feedback may assist learners to notice linguistic forms and detailed teacher feedback will have a stronger effect in improving learners' noticing quality. Based on the researches on noticing function of output and the studies on teacher feedback, the current study regards accuracy as the criterion to judge noticing quality in order to tackle the following questions: (1) What influence does teacher feedback have on learners' quality of noticing, positive or negative? (2) Will the noticing quality of learners' be improved at a different rate if they are provided with a different type teacher feedback?
The form of mixed type of unreal conditional was selected as the target form (TF) of this study because the author found in her teaching practice that students always confused it with the past hypothetical. The subjects were selected through a grammar test and a writing test, then took part in a three-staged writing on the same topic. At the first stage, the participants were asked to write with the target form according to the given directions; then they produced a second draft with a model essay input presented; afterwards the teacher responded to the second drafts of the two groups respectively with detailed and brief feedback, and finally asked the students to revise the errors of their second drafts and produce the third draft, t-test was used to analyze the grammar test and the writing test, and Mann-Whitney U tests as well as Wilconxon-signed-ranks test were used to analyze data collected from Draft 2 and Draft 3. The findings obtained from the experiment are: (1) Teacher feedback has a positive effec
t on learners' noticing quality and different types of teacher feedback facilitate the learners' noticing quality at a different rate; and (2) Learners with detailed teacher feedback achieve better noticing
quality than those with brief feedback. This study provided strong support to the use of teacher feedback in writing classes. At the end of this study, limitations are discussed.
有学者认为反馈可以影响学习者对语言形式的注意，但对教师反馈的作用却存在争论。本文作者认为教师反馈是一种提高学习者注意的有效方法，教师可以通过向学习者提供详尽的反馈来提高学习者注意的质量。论文以前人对语言输出的注意功能和教师反馈的研究为基础，将学习者输出的语言形式是否正确作为衡量注意质量的标准，探讨了以下问题：(1)教师反馈对学习者注意的质量产生何种影响?(2)如果教师向学习者提供不同类型的反馈，是否会相应地导致学习者对语言形式的注意在质量上产生显著的差异?
在日常教学过程中，作者发现学生在使用混合虚拟语气时常常将其和虚拟语气的过去形式相混淆，因此在本实验中以混合虚拟语气作为语言形式的考察对象。经过语法测试和写作测试，筛选出两个试验组(总计83人)。研究者要求他们就同一题目进行三次写作。写作任务要求受试者在写作时使用混合虚拟语气的形式。第一次写作由受试者按照写作要求自己独立进行写作，然后教师向受试者提供范文，受试者依照范文提供的提示进行第二次写作；之后，教师分别对两组的作文中存在的问题(包括混合虚拟语气的语言形式和其它语言形式)分别施以详尽的和简略的反馈。受试者再根据教师的反馈在第二稿的基础上进行修改，写出第三稿。在分析语法测试和写作测试的数据时，采用了t检验；在分析受试者的第二稿和第三稿数据时，采用了曼—惠特尼U检验及符号秩次检验。实验结果表明：(1)详尽的教师反馈和简略的教师反馈均提高了学习者的注意质量，而且两种不同类型的教师反馈使学生对语言形式注意的质量产生不同程度的促进作用；(2)在详细的教师反馈的影响下，学习者注意的质量明显高于受简略的教师反馈所影响的学习者。这一实验结果肯定了在语言教学中教师就学习者存在问题的语言形式给予反馈的积极作用。本文最后讨论了研究中存在的问题，建议就教师反馈对学习者的作用做进一步的研究。
Many applied linguistic researchers have showed great concern to the noticing function of output since Swain puts forward the Output Hypothesis. According to the Output Hypothesis, output has three functions: the noticing function, hypothesis testing function and metalinguistic function. Researches on the noticing function find that output facilitates learners in noticing the problems in their interlanguage. Qi and Lapkin (2001) advocate in their study that how to improve the noticing quality is a question, which has to be addressed immediately.
Previous studies have revealed that learners' noticing can be facilitated by feedback, but views on teacher feedback are rather contentious. The author of this dissertation holds that teacher feedback may assist learners to notice linguistic forms and detailed teacher feedback will have a stronger effect in improving learners' noticing quality. Based on the researches on noticing function of output and the studies on teacher feedback, the current study regards accuracy as the criterion to judge noticing quality in order to tackle the following questions: (1) What influence does teacher feedback have on learners' quality of noticing, positive or negative? (2) Will the noticing quality of learners' be improved at a different rate if they are provided with a different type teacher feedback?
The form of mixed type of unreal conditional was selected as the target form (TF) of this study because the author found in her teaching practice that students always confused it with the past hypothetical. The subjects were selected through a grammar test and a writing test, then took part in a three-staged writing on the same topic. At the first stage, the participants were asked to write with the target form according to the given directions; then they produced a second draft with a model essay input presented; afterwards the teacher responded to the second drafts of the two groups respectively with detailed and brief feedback, and finally asked the students to revise the errors of their second drafts and produce the third draft, t-test was used to analyze the grammar test and the writing test, and Mann-Whitney U tests as well as Wilconxon-signed-ranks test were used to analyze data collected from Draft 2 and Draft 3. The findings obtained from the experiment are: (1) Teacher feedback has a positive effec
t on learners' noticing quality and different types of teacher feedback facilitate the learners' noticing quality at a different rate; and (2) Learners with detailed teacher feedback achieve better noticing
quality than those with brief feedback. This study provided strong support to the use of teacher feedback in writing classes. At the end of this study, limitations are discussed.
引文
[1] Batstone, R. 1996. Noticing. ELT Journal, 50, pp.273.
[2] de Bot, K. 1996. The psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, pp.529-55.
[3] Ellis, R. 2000. Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[4] Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. 1997. Teacher commentary on student writing: descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, pp.155-182
[5] Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, pp.161-184.
[7] Frantzen, D. 1995. The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, pp.329-344.
[8] Hyland, F. 1998. The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, pp.255-286.
[9] Hyland, F. 2003. Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31, pp.217-230
[10] Iwashita, N. 2001. The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in non-native-normative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, pp.267—287.
[11] Izumi, S. 2003. Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the Psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 168-196.
[12] Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESQL Quarterly, 34, pp.239-78.
[13] Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. 1999. Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effect of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp.421-452.
[14] Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. 1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, pp.203—210.
[15] Paulus, T. M. 1999. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing 8, pp.265-289.
[16] Pica, T. 1983. Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language learning, 33, pp.465-497.
[17] Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. 1996. Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59-84.
[18] Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. 1998. If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second language writing, 7, pp.43-68.
[19] Qi, S. D. & Lapkin, S. 2001. Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, pp.277-303.
[20] Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp.206-226.
[21] Schmidt, R. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, pp.206-26.
[22] Shehadeh, A. 1999. Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, pp.627-675.
[23] Shehadeh, A. 2003. Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System 31, pp.155-171.
[24] Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, pp.125-144. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[25] Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, pp.371-391.
[26] Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, pp.327-369.
[27] Van den Branden, K. 1997. Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47, pp.589-636.
[28] Williams, J. 1999. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, pp.583-625.
[29] Zhang, S. 1995. Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Wring, 4, pp.209-222.
[30] Zhang, S. 1999. Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Wring, 8, pp.321-326.
[2] de Bot, K. 1996. The psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, pp.529-55.
[3] Ellis, R. 2000. Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[4] Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. 1997. Teacher commentary on student writing: descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, pp.155-182
[5] Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, pp.161-184.
[7] Frantzen, D. 1995. The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, pp.329-344.
[8] Hyland, F. 1998. The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, pp.255-286.
[9] Hyland, F. 2003. Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31, pp.217-230
[10] Iwashita, N. 2001. The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in non-native-normative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, pp.267—287.
[11] Izumi, S. 2003. Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the Psycholinguistic rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 168-196.
[12] Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESQL Quarterly, 34, pp.239-78.
[13] Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. 1999. Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effect of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp.421-452.
[14] Nobuyoshi, J. & Ellis, R. 1993. Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, pp.203—210.
[15] Paulus, T. M. 1999. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing 8, pp.265-289.
[16] Pica, T. 1983. Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language learning, 33, pp.465-497.
[17] Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. 1996. Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59-84.
[18] Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. 1998. If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second language writing, 7, pp.43-68.
[19] Qi, S. D. & Lapkin, S. 2001. Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, pp.277-303.
[20] Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp.206-226.
[21] Schmidt, R. 1993. Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, pp.206-26.
[22] Shehadeh, A. 1999. Non-native speakers' production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49, pp.627-675.
[23] Shehadeh, A. 2003. Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System 31, pp.155-171.
[24] Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, pp.125-144. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[25] Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, pp.371-391.
[26] Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, pp.327-369.
[27] Van den Branden, K. 1997. Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47, pp.589-636.
[28] Williams, J. 1999. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, pp.583-625.
[29] Zhang, S. 1995. Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Wring, 4, pp.209-222.
[30] Zhang, S. 1999. Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Wring, 8, pp.321-326.