期刊文章分类查询,尽在期刊图书馆
I.Introduction
Writing plays an important part in English learning as the most difficult one of the four basic language skills. The learners’ ability to comprehend linguistic using can be reflected by writing. However, there are many kinds of errors that occur in the students’ writing. For one reason , the complexity of writing itself causes errors in the students’ writings. For another reason, some students and teachers usually do not take the writing classes seriously. The time for writing lessons just takes up the smallest proportion of all kinds of classes. Therefore, one of the most significant current discussions is how to find proper approaches to improve students’ writing ability. Teacher written corrective feedback is considered as the most focused one of all the approaches.
In recent years, corrective feedback has been a debate in the field of researches. As for Truscott(1996,2007), after analyzing others’ researches, his article in 1996 states that teacher written corrective feedback is helpful but harmful to students’ improvement of writing, consequently it should not be supported. However, some other researchers are approve of another contrary view. For instance, Ferris(1999) argues that Truscott ignores the researches where students have already made progress in composition with the help of feedback about grammar error. Most of the researchers supporting Ferris such as Ashwell (2000) Chandler(2003) and Leki(1991). Actually, there are disputes between those two opinions, which focus on whether corrective feedback is very effective in improving students’ writing.
In addition, which type of teacher written corrective feedback is more effective has been focused on by researchers at abroad (Hyland,1998;Zamel,1985), so do domestic researchers(Wang,2006; Chen&Li,2009;Guo&Qin,2006). The aim of the present study is to explore whether these two different types of teacher written corrective feedback (direct corrective feedback or indirect corrective feedback)have effects on improving English writing of senior high school students. Meanwhile, it also shows that which type of written corrective feedback (direct corrective feedback or indirect corrective feedback) is much more effective for these different level students.
This essay has been organised in the following way. Types of written corrective feedback; The effects of written corrective feedback on students’ writing; the effect of indirect corrective feedback for students at different levels; the effect of direct corrective feedback for students at different levels.
II.Types of written corrective feedback
This essay will show a comprehensive classification about written corrective feedback. Ellis (2009) identifies many types of WCF with the purpose of researching the effects various kinds of WCF methodically. But in this essay, the author presents two main types of written corrective feedback raised by Ellis(2008): direct corrective feedback, and indirect corrective feedback.
In terms of direct feedback, teachers not only show the errors clearly that students make on their compositions but also correct them to improve their writing. As is seen by Ferris (2006), we can take a large quantity of diverse forms to correct errors---deleting an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme, adding a missing morpheme or word, then writing the right forms above or close to the wrong form. Students get an explicit guidance especially when they don’t know what the right form is. As Ferris and Roberts (2001) note, “direct corrective feedback is probably superior to indirect corrective feedback especially for those who are not capable of correcting errors on account of lower levels of language proficiency. Nevertheless, the weakness is that it may not be suitable for students’ long term learning because it can not provide the chance for self-reflection” Consequently, students probably make errors which were met before but will meet again next time in the composition because they did not reflect on the errors carefully (seriously). As a result, they are not strongly aware of errors in the next writing.
In Contrast to(with) WCF, indirect corrective feedback is when teachers use indirect ways to correct students’ errors in their compositions. There are various types of indirect corrective feedback. Teachers can show the accurate location of the error. They can also show them not in details. For instance, teachers can underline the errors or mark the omissions from students’ compositions. There is another approach that is to put together the errors at the end of essay. The advantage of adopting indirect corrective feedback is to motivate students to think over how to correct errors and why errors occur in the essay. Lalande (1982) propose the theory “guided learning and problem solving” which the advantage of ICF caters to. It can make students have a long term development on writing because it arouses students to reflect how to not making the same errors. The disadvantage of indirect corrective feedback is that some students especially at a low level have trouble in how to correct the errors. Because they don’t know what the corrective forms are. Thus, maybe indirect corrective feedback can discourage students to write another essay confidently. Consequently, direct and indirect corrective feedback should be mixed to use according to different students’ levels.
III.The effects of written corrective feedback on students’ writing.
In this part, the data is collected by Zhang liping (2016) with the purpose of exploring whether direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback are effective for Senior High School Students in their compositions.
After indirect corrective feedback is carried out, she finds It’s obviously that the indirect corrective feedback is effective for students at high levels. According to her research, the indirect corrective feedback for students at different levels is effective, which contributes to improving their English compositions. However, there is a little difference about the effects for students at different levels. The effects for students at high level are more effective than those at low level. It is probably connected with students’ different basic language knowledge because high level students have a good knowledge of this subject. Consequently, it’s a little difficult for low level students to correct complicated errors that teachers underline but don’t give the corrective forms. However, we can’t neglect the significance of indirect corrective feedback in second language acquisition. As is stated by Lalande (1982) “indirect corrective feedback caters for the concept of guided learning which can provide more chances for students to solve the problems by themselves”
She also found that after receiving the indirect corrective feedback ,High level students’ compositions have been improved. It’s obviously that direct corrective feedback is effective for high level students’ essays.
According to the data from her research , students get a lot of improvement from the direct corrective feedback though they are at different levels. Swain (1995) put forward the concept “notice the gap” that emphasizes the significance of noticing the difference between the learners’ own language and the target language. Direct corrective feedback is said to confirm to students’ cognitive development. Thus, it’s not difficult for students receiving direct corrective feedback to get improvement because their errors in their compositions are corrected by teachers directly then they can know what the right forms are. What’s more, they will know their grammar errors and weakness of English knowledge so that they will avoid the same errors next time. In addition, according to the mean difference, it proves that direct corrective feedback is more effective for low level students.
IV.Conclusion
The topic about the effects of teacher written corrective feedback on students’ writing has been argued for many years, hopefully the study will make a bit contribution to whether or how to provide the teacher written corrective feedback to students’ writing. It is proved that Indirect corrective feedback is effective in enhancing the students’ English writing. The improvement of low level students’ writing is not so significant as those who are at the high level group. This is also indicates that indirect corrective feedback is more effective and suitable for students at high levels to some degree. What’s more, direct corrective feedback makes important effect on the students’ writing in senior high school. That is to say, high level students and low level students both improve their English writing after receiving the direct corrective feedback.
For high level students, there are not obvious differences between the effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback on their writing. Consequently, it can not be decided that which corrective feedback is more suitable for students at high levels. Thus, its better for teachers to provide these two types of feedbacks when correcting students’ compositions.
For low level students, there is a slight difference between the effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback and direct corrective feedback on their compositions. But it’s considered that direct corrective feedback is more effective for low level students.
The results and findings of the present study suggest that Teacher Written Corrective Feedback is supposed to be adopted by teachers to improve students’ English compositions. In addition, students in senior high school take teacher written feedback carefully so that they will improve their own writing ability. Moreover, TWCF is supposed to be attached importance by teachers that can make the best of its advantages to improve their teaching and lead to students’ learning in writing in a long term.
There are still some limitations for study due to some unavoidable factors, hopefully the questionnaire will be included in the further study.
References :
[1]Ashwell,T.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,2000(9).
[2]Chandler, J.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,2003(12).
[3]Ellis,R,Sheen,Y,Murakami,M,&Takashima,H.The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective
feedback in English as a foreign language context[J].System,2008(36).
[4]Ferris,D,R. The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott(1996)[J].
Journal of Second Language Writing,1999(8).
[5]Ferris,D.(2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short-and long-term effects
of written error correction. In K.Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.). Feedback in second language writing:
Contexts and issues[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6]Ferris,D.R.and Roberts,B. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?[J].
Journal of Second Language Writing,2001(10).
[7]Hyland,F..The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers[J]. Journal of Second Language
Writing,1998(7).
[8]Lalande,J.Reducing composition errors: An experiment [J].Modern Language Journal,1982(66).
[9]Leki,I.The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes[J].Foreign Language Annals,1991(24).
[10]Truscott,J.The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes[J].Language Learning,1996(46).
[11]Truscott,J.The effects of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2007(6).
[12]Zamel,V..Responding to student writing[J].TESOL Quarterly,1985(1).
(作者单位：辽宁省盘山县高级中学 124100)
论文作者:高雅利
论文发表刊物:《中学课程辅导●教学研究》2017年1月上
论文发表时间:2017/3/3
标签：盘山县论文; 期刊论文; 辽宁省论文; 尽在论文; 高级中学论文; 文章分类论文; 图书馆论文; 《中学课程辅导●教学研究》2017年1月上论文;