二语习得中的作文纠错理论,该文是关于理论研究自考毕业论文范文和二语习得和理论研究和作文有关自考毕业论文范文.
理论研究论文参考文献：
Du Xiaohong
（Nanjing Xiaozhuang College, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 211171）
［Abstract］The paper reviews the theories on error correction in Second Language (L2) writing. It analyzes researchers’ various attitudes towards error correction and their research on the efficacy of error correction on L2 learners’ writing and also discusses strategies for error correction and pedagogical implications for EFL writing.
［Key words］English writing,error correction,L2
［中图分类号］ H319［文献标识码］ A［文章编号］ 1672\|8610(2016)02\|0165\|03
I. Introduction
Error correction has been commonly applied in teaching Second Language (L2) writing, so is the case with foreign language teaching. However, its effect on writing accuracy has long been a controversial one. This paper reviews theories of error correction in L2 learners’ writing and attempts to find how foreign language teachers can make their “corrective feedback” effective in students’ writing. Firstly various attitudes of researchers towards corrective feedback are presented; then, the efficacy of corrective feedback is discussed; finally, strategies used in giving corrective feedback will are discussed with pedagogical implications for error correction in EFL context.
Ⅱ. Various Views on Error Correction in L2 Writing
As is believed, second language acquisition(SLA) takes time and occurs in stages, which implies that errors are natural and reflects the learner’s knowledge of the language (Corder, 1967), so is the case with the L2 learner’s writing (Ferris, 2002). The L2 learner’s writing cannot be expected to be “error free” (Ferris, 2002). Therefore how the errors should be treated is an important issue in L2 writing and teaching, in which various corrective techniques are actually applied. Truscott (1996) defines grammar correction as “correction of grammatical errors for the purpose of improving a student’s ability to write accurately”(Truscott, 1996: 329) which is expanded by Ferris (2003) to “… include lexical errors such as word choice, word form, collocations and mechanical errors such as spelling, punctuation, capitalization and typing conventions” (Ferris, 2003: 42) as to define error correction in L2 writing.
Although error correction is commonly practiced by the L2 teacher, theorists and researchers like Truscott (1996), Ferris (1996), Chandler (2004) hold very different or even controversial opinions towards corrective feedback to the L2 learner’s writing. Some researchers, like Truscott (1996, 1999, 2004, 2007), are strongly against corrective feedback. They hold that corrective feedback can be both ineffective and harmful (Truscott 1996). Truscott (1996, 2007) analyzed the effects of error correction on the learner’s ability to write accurately and concluded that error correction had a minor negative effect on learners’ writing accuracy and the benefit of corrective feedback could be very all if there was any. He thus declared that error correction was a failure and suggested that grammar correction should be abandoned (1996, 2007). Truscott’s (1996) claim was further supported by the findings of studies conducted by researchers like Lee (2007, 2008) and Hyland (1998). Both of these researchers found that students did not fully utilize teachers’ feedback and Hyland (1998) particularly pointed out that “the feedback situation had great potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding” (Hyland, 1998: 255).
Nevertheless, Truscott’s (1996) claim encounters strong disagreement from researchers like Ferris (1996, 2002) and Chandler (2003, 2004), who claim that feedback facilitates writing accuracy and fluency and in addition, the attitude of students themselves towards corrective feedback also counts for a big reason for the practice of corrective feedback. According to Ferris’ (2002) and Chandler’s (2003, 2004) research, students perceive feedback as a great help to improve their writing.
The impact of corrective feedback on L2 learners’ writings is also promoted by other researchers, like Bichener, J. (2008). Bichener, J. (2008) conducted a study on the effect of corrective feedback, in which 4 groups of ESL learners’ writings received different error treatment, including a group which received no corrective feedback at all. The learners had pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-tests, and the results showed that those groups who received corrective feedback outperformed the group who had no feedback and the performance was retained 2 months later as was indicated in the delayed post-tests. This study provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of corrective feedback by including a control group which received no corrective feedback and studying a new piece of writing in the post test.
Nevertheless, with regard to the overall debate, some scholars point out that the different results concerning the efficacy of corrective feedback are due to the different designs of the research (Guenette 2007).
Ⅲ. Strategies Used in Error Correction in L2 Writing
Although scholars like Truscott (1996, 2004, 2007) argue strongly against corrective feedback, some scholars (Guennette, 2007; Ferris, 2002) believe that corrective feedback should not be abolished just because of no conclusive results. Swain (2005) also asserts that the modified output of feedback is part of SLA. The contrast between the teacher’s feedback and the learner’s own output leads to the learner’s consciousness of their own linguistic problems which prompts them to attend to the linguistic forms and in turn triggers them to develop interlanguage (Izumi, S. 2003). Therefore before there is a greater weight of more valid evidence to show that giving corrective feedback to the learner’s writing is harmful, it seems advisable that the teacher should still practice corrective feedback (Guenette, 2007; Ferris, 2002, 2003). Nevertheless, these scholars also point out that the teachers must attend to the context if they want to make their corrective feedback really beneficial to the learner’s writing (Guenette, 2007). Guenette (2007) and Ferris (2002) claim that the success or failure of corrective feedback depends on the context of writing, which includes classroom context, the type of errors and the learner’s proficiency level (Ferris, 2002; Guennete, 2007).
Studies show that not all errors under all circumstances should be corrected (Ferris, 2002, 2003; Robb, Ross & Shortreed, 1986). El-Koumy & Salam (2000) conducted a study to compare the effects of overall, selective and no error correction on the quality and quantity of EFL students’ writing. A total of 107 secondary students who participated in the study were randomly assigned to three treatment conditions: “(1) overall error correction (2)selective error correction and (3)no error correction” (El-Koumy & Salam, 2000: 5). After 22 weeks (with a 2-week interruption), the post tests revealed great differences among the three groups, who did not show significant differences on the pretests. The results showed that selective error correction improved not only the quality and quantity of EFL students’ writing, but also supported the contention that errors should not be left uncorrected. One of the study’s minor findings also showed that overall correction made no difference from no correction. Therefore it is reasonable for teachers to attend to what errors should be corrected and what should not, when correcting learners’ writing.
Ferris (2002) distinguishes various types of errors in his book, but points out that which errors to be corrected is not definite,but those errors which hinder communication should be picked out (Ferris 2002; Walz, 1982). Ferris (2002) further suggests a few stages to decide on what errors to be corrected: “(1) Understand the types of errors that are most common to ESL writers; (2) Understand that different students may make distinct types of errors; (3)Understand the need to prioritize error feedback for individual students” (Ferris, 2002: 51-60).
Hing decided on what errors to be corrected, teachers should then attend to strategies for error correcting. One distinction that has been made in the literature is that of direct and indirect teacher feedback (Walz, 1982; Ferris, 2002). With direct feedback, the teacher provides the correct forms and the students only need to transcribe the correction into another draft when revising the text, while with indirect feedback, the teacher only indicates the errors and the students are compelled to reflect on the errors and make corrections themselves (Ferris, 2002). Many researchers prefer indirect feedback as it engages learners in “guided learning and problem solving” Lalande, 1982 in Ferris & Robert B., 2001). Studies were also conducted to contrast the two types of feedback and the results fored indirect feedback (Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler 2003). Meanwhile how explicit the error feedback should be does not affect the self-editing very much (Ferris & Robert B., 2001; Chandler, 2003). However, Ferris (2002) also holds that different situations need different treatments. He puts forward a few specific conditions in which direct and explicit feedback should be given, e.g. when students are at the beginning level of L2 proficiency or when errors are “nontreatable” (Ferris, 2002: 63).
Another problem concerning error correction that often puzzles most language teachers, esp. those who he large classes is the conflict between the amount of time required to give indirect feedback and the superiority of indirect feedback (Huang, 2000). To look into the problem, Huang (2000) conducted research on a new way of presenting corrective feedback: audiotaped feedback. He conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of audiotaped feedback (ATF) with traditional written feedback (WF). He analyzed a teacher’s ATF (which in fact was combined with a little WF) and WF (only WF) to a student’s two writing assignments and he found that although the types of errors corrected by the teacher didn’t show much difference, both the quantity and quality of ATF were superior to that of WF. He also found that ATF encouraged the teacher to interact with the student more thoroughly and in the ATF, the strategies used by the teacher in correcting errors encouraged the student to do the correction better. The data also showed that the student responded better to ATF and the student himself declared ATF to be better and preferred ATF. The study also showed that the teacher tended to give direct correction to the student in WF while in ATF, the teacher tended to give implications and lee the student to correct the errors. Despite the fact that the study was not conclusive since the sample was too all, just one teacher, one student and two writing assignments, it still has a reason to believe that based on the findings indirect feedback (The teacher interacts with the student in ATF, not giving direct answers) offers students the opportunity to think about their errors, which leads students to long term progress (Ferris, 2002). More importantly, ATF also gives an optional reply to the question raised by Ferris and Roberts (2001) who, when arguing for indirect feedback, address the question of whether indirect feedback is appropriate for complicated and idiosyncratic errors in sentence structure. ATF can better interact with students by discussing and explaining the complicated problem within a short time and still lee the problems to be solved by the students themselves.
To conclude, as for the strategies for error correction, Ferris (2003) summarizes the whole situation best by stating that “Teachers should keep in mind that there are principles for response to student writing which remind teachers to prioritize, to treat students as individuals, to be encouraging, to be clear and helpful and to oid imposing their own ideas on student writers, leing final decisions in the hands of writer” (Ferris, 2003: 119).
Ⅳ. Conclusion
From the brief review of the theories on error correction, it can be seen that although researchers he very different opinions about corrective feedback, there are scholars who confirm the effectiveness of corrective feedback and suggest that providing indirect feedback and leing the learner to reflect on and correct their own writing errors will help to improve their writing accuracy better than that of giving direct feedback. Furthermore, researchers emphasize the significance of the context and in practicing corrective feedback the teachers must attend to individual differences. Nevertheless, further research must be done to study the actually effective ways of correcting errors for EFL learners.
【 References 】
［1］Bitchener, J. 2008. Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2): 102-118.
\[2\] Bitchener, J., Young, S., Cameron, D. 2005. The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 14: 191-205.
\[3\] Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in Accuracy and Fluencey of L2 Student Writing［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 267-296.
\[4\] Chandler, J. 2004. A response to Truscott［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 345-348.
\[5\] Corder. 1967. The Significance of Learner’s Errors［J］.IRAL, 5: 161-170.
\[6\] El-Koumy, Salam, A. 2000. Effects of Overall, Selective, and No Error Correction on the Quality and Quantity of EFL Students’ Writing［D］.Publication no. ED 449 664.
\[7\] Ferris, D. 1996. The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscoot［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1): 1-11.
\[8\] Ferris, D. 2002. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing［M］.The University of Michigan Press.
\[9\] Ferris, D., Roberts, B. 2001. Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How explicit does it need to be?［J］. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184.
\[10\] Ferris, D. R. 2003. Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language students［M］.NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
\[11\] Guenette, D. 2007. Is Feedback Pedagogically Correct? Research Design Issues in Studies of Feedback on Writing［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 16: 40-53.
\[12\] Huang, S.-Y. 2000. The Nature of an EFL Teacher’s Audiotaped and Written Feedback on Student Writing: A Case Study［M］.Publication no. ED 438 728.
\[13\] Hyland, F. 1998. The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3): 255-286.
\[14\] Lee, I. 1997. ESL Learners’ Performance in Error Correction in Writing: Some Implications for Teaching［J］.Pergamon, 25(4): 465-477.
\[15\] Lee, I. 2007. Feedback in Hong Kong Secondary Writing Classroom: Assesent for Learning or Assesent of Learning?［J］.Assessing Writing, 12: 180-198.
\[16\] Lee, I. 2008. Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback in Two Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3): 144-164.
\[17\] Robb, T., Ross, S., Shortreed, I. 1986. Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writing Quality［J］.TESOL Quarterly, 20(1): 83-95.
\[18\] Truscott, J. 1996. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes［J］.Language Learning, 46(2): 327-369.
\[19\] Truscott, J. 1999. The Case for “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”: A Response to Ferris［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2): 111-122.
\[20\] Truscott, J. 2004. Evidence and Conjecture on the effects of Correction: A Response to Chandler［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 337-343.
\[21\] Truscott, J. 2007. The Effect of Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to Write Accurately［J］.Journal of Second Language Writing, 16: 255-272.
\[22\] Walz., J. 1982. Error Correction Techniques for the FL Classroom［M］.Washington D.C.: The Center for Applied Linguistics and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
二语习得中的作文纠错理论研究
杜小红
（南京晓庄学院 外国语学院,江苏南京 211171）
［摘 要］本文探讨二语习得中对英语写作进行错误纠正的相关理论.本文分析国内外学者对作文纠错所持的不同观点和对纠错有效性的研究；同时讨论相关的改错策略以及对外语教学中英语写作纠错的启示.
［关键词］英语写作；纠错；二语习得
该文结束语,本文是一篇大学硕士与理论研究本科理论研究毕业论文开题报告范文和相关优秀学术职称论文参考文献资料，关于免费教你怎么写二语习得和理论研究和作文方面论文范文.
二语习得母语负迁移对高职英语口语教学
摘要在二语习得研究领域,母语负迁移具有重要的研究价值 本文从语音、词汇、语法、文化四个方面分析了母语负迁移的影响,在此基础上建议对母语和目的语进行全面的对比分析,实现英语口语教学中的文化渗透,灵活地采.
概念隐喻理论视角下的英语习语教学
英语习语是英语民族经过长期社会实践沉淀下来的语言形式,它们像镜子一样折射出英语语言的文化内涵、隐喻认知模式及特别的语用含义（张镇华……,2006） 英语习语作为一种比喻性语言在本族语者的交流中出现频率.
个体差异因素对泰国学生二语习得的影响
个体差异因素对泰国学生二语习得的影响朱米罗（云南师范大学 云南华文学院、国际汉语教育学院,云南 昆明 650500）摘 要个体差异因素是客观存在的,个体差异因素包括认知风格、个体智商、学习动机、学习风.
英语习语和英国文化的关系
韩舒婷（重庆师范大学涉外商贸学院 重庆 401520）【摘 要】英语是如今使用范围最广的一门语言,对于英语学习者来说,能否学好英语对其自身的发展有着不小的影响 在现代社会,英语也是在各行业极受重视的.