1887
Volume 52, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2451-828x
  • E-ISSN: 2451-8298
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

口头纠正性反馈包括直接更正、元语言反馈、重铸、要求澄清、重复错误和诱导这六种方式。大量研究表明口头纠正性反馈对学习者语言能力的提升具有积极作用。性格特征,作为一个人的心理认同,具有相对稳定的特性,尤其就成年人而言。众多研究表明性格特征能够影响一个人第二语言的习得。然而,口头纠正性反馈与性格特征之间的关系却未能引起广泛重视。本文通过问卷调查、课堂录音和个别访谈三种方式考察了师生性格特征与口头纠正性反馈之间的关系。研究结果表明:(1)性格特征在一定程度上会影响教师口头纠正性反馈的纠错力度,但并不影响教师对不同类型偏误所持的纠错态度及反馈方式的总体选择。(2)师生就口头纠正性反馈方式所持的态度不尽相同,尤其在“直接更正”、“重铸”和“重复错误”方式上。(3)不同性格特征的教师和学生在口头纠正性反馈的选择上所持态度存在一定差异,尤其在“直接更正”、“元语言反馈”、“重铸”和“诱导”方面。

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/csl.52.2.04sun
2017-11-10
2019-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bitchener, J. , & Knoch, U.
    (2009) The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37 (2), 322–329. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cazan, A. , & Schiopca, B.
    (2014) Self-directed learning, personality traits and academic achievement. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127 , 640–644. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.327
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.327 [Google Scholar]
  3. Crystal, D.
    (2010) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ehrman, M. E.
    (2008) Personality and good language users. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp.61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511497667.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellis, R. , Loewen, S. , & Erlam, R.
    (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 339–368. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060141
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 [Google Scholar]
  6. Eysenck, H. J.
    (1967) The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Thomas.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eysenck, S. , & Barrett, P.
    (2013) Re-introduction to cross-cultural studies of the EPQ. Personality and Individual Differences, 54 , 485–489. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.022 [Google Scholar]
  8. Lee, E. J.
    (2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41 (2), 217–230. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022 [Google Scholar]
  9. Leeman, J.
    (2007) Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp.111–138). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Lu, X., & Gao, L. 陆熙雯, 高立群
    (2015) Duìwài Hànyǔ Kètáng Hùdòng zhōng Jiūzhèngxìng Fǎnkuì duì Xídé de Yǐngxiǎng [对外汉语课堂互动中纠正性反馈对习得的影响: Impact of corrective feedback on language acquisition in Chinese L2 classroom interaction]. [Chinese Teaching in the World], 1 , 95–110. doi: 10.13724/j.cnki.ctiw.2015.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.13724/j.cnki.ctiw.2015.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lyster, R.
    (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 399–432. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104263021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104263021 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lyster, R. , & Ranta, L.
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 37–66. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197001034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lyster, R. , & Saito, K.
    (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265–302. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990520
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520 [Google Scholar]
  14. MacIntyre, P. D. , & Charos, C.
    (1996) Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15 (1), 3–26. doi: 10.1177/0261927X960151001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960151001 [Google Scholar]
  15. O’Connor, M. C. , & Paunonen, S. V.
    (2007) Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 , 971–990. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017 [Google Scholar]
  16. Russell, J. , & Spada, N.
    (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris , & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Sheen, Y.
    (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8 (3), 263–300. doi: 10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa [Google Scholar]
  18. (2007) The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp.301–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 , 203–234. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990507
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507 [Google Scholar]
  20. Shintani, N. , & Ellis, R.
    (2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (3), 286–306. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Beuningen, C. G. De Jong, N. H. , & Kuiken, F.
    (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62 (1), 1–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Zu, X. 祖晓梅
    (2008) Hànyǔ Kètáng Gèngzhèngxìng Fǎnkuì de Diàochá yǔ Fènxī [汉语课堂更正性反馈的调查与分析: Corrective feedback in Chinese language classrooms]. [Chinese Language Learning] 1 , 93–100.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/csl.52.2.04sun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/csl.52.2.04sun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error