一些中国稿件中的常见问题.doc

一些中国稿件中的常见问题（浙江大学郑春仙教授）

阅读人数：4046 添加时间：2009-3-23 9:30:00 我要评论
Tags:PDF SCI

A Study of Peer Error Feedback
ZHENG Chun-xian1, 2
(1. Foreign Languages School, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023;
2. Foreign Languages School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058)
Abstract: In the writing instruction in the EFL/ESL context, error correction is always something that baffles teachers. Literature review indicates that peer revision can be an alternative to teacher correction. But few study is done on how well students can perform the peer revision activity, and what is left for the teacher in the error
correction. This study aims at the exploration of the answer to these two questions through a tentative experiment, with the result that students can correct most of the errors quite well except word choice, collocation and some other global errors.
Key words: writing instruction; error correction; peer revision
1. Problem
In the writing instruction of college non-English majors, feedback on errors in the students’ composition is always something teachers feel troublesome because of the large population of students a teacher has to teach and the various errors or mistakes there are in students’ compositions. On the other hand, even if a teacher is conscientious enough to correct all the mistakes, will it be a positive way to help students learn? Talks with teachers and students illustrate the answer is almost negative. Most students just look at the marks teachers give and ignore the error corrections at all. Worst of all, if a student’s composition is full of red ink, he may be frustrated and his interest and confidence in leaning ma be destroyed. Thus, it is necessary for teachers to explore effective ways to facilitate students’ learning from errors, and meanwhile help them be able to avoid the above-mentioned troubles.
2. Literature Review
A review of the literature on error feedback reveals two major study areas: teachers’ correction (Hyland, 1990;Makino, 1993; Dheram, 1995; Perpignan, 2003) and peer editing Keh, 1990; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Storch, 1998; De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000). The former, however, is often criticized as being “unspecific, incomprehensible,contradictory, inconsistent, inaccurate, meaningless to the student, vague, over-general, abstract, formulaic and idiosyncratic” (Zamel, 1985, cited in Rollinson, 2005). Robb et al (ibid, cited in Dheram) found that detailed feedback on surface errors was not more accurate than less detailed feedback on their respondents’ work. They also observed that “improvement was independent of type of feedback” (ibid: 93). Fathman and Whalley (1990, cited in Dheram) found that learners’ grammatical competence only improved when they received specific feedback on their grammar. Perpignan (2003) draws the disconcerting conclusion that teachers’ error feedback serves no useful purpose in the students’ learning improvement because of the lack of understanding between teachers and students.
The latter is becoming more and more popular nowadays as it “operates on a more informal level than teacher ZHENG Chun-xian, female, graduate student of Foreign Languages School, Zhejiang University, lecturer of Foreign Languages
下载：一些中国投稿中的常见问题.pdf