教育学英语论文:写作中的错误 [3]
论文作者:jessica论文属性:学术文章 Scholarship Essay登出时间:2014-12-18编辑:jessica点击率:16171
论文字数:6976论文编号:org201411122112002962语种:英语 English地区:中国价格:免费论文
关键词:错误纠正英语教育Error correction
摘要:关于学生的写作作业中的错误,老师和学生应该如何对待呢?对于这个问题学生和老师都有不同的看法,那么究竟是纠正错误呢还是任其发展呢?如果是纠正其中的错误,应该如何纠正呢?
issues in EFL instruction can hardly be denied.
The second problem involves error correction. Generally, error correction is needed when learners’ incomplete competence or incorrect generalizations or hypotheses lead to errors. Research has indicated that students want teachers to correct their errors for them (e.g., Zhang, 1995). However, different issues should be taken into account when correcting errors in writing. The first is whether teachers should correct all the errors or they should select some of the errors to correct (comprehensive vs. selective error correction).
In a study examining the effect of content feedback followed by form feedback on students’ composition ability, Ashwell (2000) prefers to be as comprehensive as possible in giving feedback, though he states that authorities generally advise teachers to be selective in their form feedback. He then justifies his preference and explains that he did so to prevent the common systematic problems that might had otherwise arisen. Lee (2003) also posits that “selective error feedback is a much more viable option” (p. 218). However, the findings of her study (2004) revealed that both teachers and learners preferred comprehensive error feedback and this is what the majority of teachers do in practice. She also presumes that teachers may not know how to provide selective error feedback systematically. As Ashwell (2000) relates, Leki (1991) and Raimes (1983) suggest that teachers should be selective in providing grammar feedback to their students. Although selective error correction is generally advised to teachers, the debate over “what criterion to utilize, when and how” does not seem to be any easier to resolve than the original one between comprehensive and selective error correction.
The second issue is the approach that teachers choose to correct the errors. They can either correct the errors in a direct (explicit) manner or they may decide to employ an indirect (implicit) approach. While some researchers found indirect error correction more appropriate and useful for learners (for instance, Lalande, 1982), there are studies which suggest that direct error correction is favorable (e.g., Chandler, 2003). In indirect correction, errors are identified, but they are not corrected and students are to correct the errors. Different teachers employ different techniques to identify errors in students’ writings. For instance, they may prefer to code errors, circle them or underline them or use other innovative ways to identify errors.
A word of caution seems in order here. As Seedhouse (1997) suggests error correction can vary depending on the focus. He believes that the focus of correction can be on either form and accuracy or meaning and fluency. Whatever the focus, teachers can provide feedback comprehensively or selectively. In fact, their focus of correction does not determine whether error correction should be done comprehensively or selectively. The same holds true for implicit/explicit dichotomy. Teachers can decide to choose to
As interesting as (and even more fundamental than) the question of the approach of error correction in L2 writing is whether correction should be made at all and whether it is beneficial for the L2 learners to correct their errors. In fact, what Ferris (2004) calls the “debate”, commenced in 1996 when Truscott (1996) made a big claim – that error correction is
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。