英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度研究.docx

英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度研究.docx

《英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度研究.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度研究.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度研究

英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度研究

摘要：

在写作教学中，合理地运用反馈能够有效地帮助学习者更清楚、更准确地表达自己的思想，能够有效地提高学习者的英语综合能力。

而同伴反馈可以培养学习者对错误的敏感性，学习者也会对优点进行一定的模仿，有利于提高学习者的写作水平和英语综合能力。

尽管在中国已经有很多关于同伴反馈的相关研究，这一领域仍然具有很大探索空间。

本研究基于一项对英语专业学生对英语写作中同伴互评的态度的调查，对英语专业学生对同伴互评这一反馈方式的态度，以及在进行一学期的实践后对同伴互评的态度以及对写作的态度的调查。

本研究的结果表明，大多数学生对同伴互评持积极的态度，对他们的写作提高有所帮助。

本研究的结果将提供一些同伴互评运用于写作教学的启示和建议。

关键词：

写作；同伴互评；态度；反馈

AttitudesofEnglishMajorsTowardsPeerProofreadinginEnglishWritingPractice

Abstract:

TheresearchinvestigatestheattitudestowardspeerproofreadinginEFLwritingpractice.45sophomoresfromZhejiangGongshangUniversityparticipatedintheinvestigationofquestionnaireand10ofthemdidtheinterview.Resultsshowthatlearnersholdpositiveattitudestowardspeerproofreadingingeneral.Andafterone-semesterpracticeofpeerproofreading,learnersholdapositiveattitudetowardsEnglishwritingincontents,structure,andlanguage.Therefore,peerproofreadingisaneffectiveandacceptablewayoffeedbackinEnglishwritingpractice.

Keywords:

Englishwriting;peerfeedback;attitude;feedback

AttitudesofEnglishMajorsTowardsPeerProofreadinginEnglishWritingPractice

1Introduction

1.1TheimportanceofwritinginEnglishlearning

WritingisanimportantskillwhichEnglishmajorsarerequiredtomaster.AndEnglishWritingisarequiredcourseofEnglishmajors,whichistoimprovetheabilityofwriting.Writingpracticeisaneffectiveapproachtoexpandstudents’thinkingandexercisestudents’expressionability.ThesyllabusofEnglishCoursesforCollegeEnglishmajors（revisedin2000）statesexplicitrequestsinEnglishwritingforundergraduates.However,comparedtolistening,speakingandreading,writinggetstheverylittleattentionandwritingabilityremainstheweakestlinkincommunication.（Li,2007）

EnglishteachinginChinapaysmoreattentiontoinputpractices,suchasspeakingandreading.Butlackingofclasshours,shortofexercise,shortoffeedbackandweaknessofpertinenceandsoonarethemosturgentissuesinwritingteachinginChina.（Zhang,2008）.Inthepast,teacherstendedtoadopttheproductapproachinwritingteachingwhichhasmanydisadvantagesinfeedback.Ononehand,modifyingstudents’writingscausesaheavypressureonteachers.Ontheotherhand,studentshaveafocustothescoreoftheirwritingpracticeratherthantheteacher’smodificationsandsuggestions,whichcontributestotherepeatmistakesinstudents’writing（Bai,2013）.

1.2ThecurrentsituationofteachingwritinginChina’suniversities

EFLwritingisthemajorsourceofoutputinlanguagelearning.AndinChina,studentsaretrappedinvarioustests,suchasCET-4,CET-6andTEM-4andsoon.Soexam-orientedwritingeducationbecomesanimportantfocusinwritingteaching,whichreducesthecreativityandactivityofstudents.Intherecentyears,eventhoughstudents’totalscoresinTEM-4areonanincreaseonthewhole,theirabilityofthinkingandwritingshowlittleprogress.ThecollegeEnglishwritingclassroomisboundtobeinfluencedbyexams.Asaresult,exam-orientedwritinginstructionbecomesdominating.Tostudents,onlyiftheycanmasterexamskills,cantheyachievehighmarksinthoseexams,whichhasreducedthewritingclasstomechanicalskilltraining.Andthishasadetrimentaleffectonstudents’creativityandparticipation（Lu&Chen,2012）.

InChina,studentsaretrappedinvarioustests,suchasCET-4,CET-6andTEM-4andsoon.Soexam-orientedwritingeducationbecomesanimportantfocusinwritingteaching,whichreducesthecreativityandactivityofstudents.

Aboveall,itisnecessarytoimprovewritinginEnglishlearning.

1.3ThecharacteristicofEFLinChina

Littlewood（1999,citedinXuYing）pointedoutthateasternersarecollectivistsandemphasizerelianceandinterdependentself.Chinesetraditionlaysemphasisonharmonyandcooperation,whichprovidesthepossibilitiesforpeerproofreadingapplyingintowritingclasses.

StudentsinChinacommonlyhaveapoorcommandofEnglish,especiallyingrammar,vocabularyanddiscourseandsoon.Meanwhile,thatstudentscannotthinkcriticallycontributestotheshallowmeaningsinstudents’writing.SotoimproveEnglishwritingmustsolvealltheseproblems.

BasedonthecharacteristicofEFLinChina,fullyanalyzingthesituationofteachingwritinginChina’suniversitiesandafterreadingaboundofrelatedpapers,theresearchintendstoinvestigatetheattitudestowardspeerproofreadingofEnglishmajorsinEnglishwritingpracticeandconfirmtheefficiencyandimportantinEnglish

writingteachingclass.

2Literaturereview

2.1Relatedtheories

2.1.1Processapproach

Processapproach,basedoncommunicationtheory,holdtheviewthatwritingprocessisareciprocalprocessofcyclicpsychologicalcognitionandthinkingcreativityratherthanthelearner’sindividualbehavioralprocess.Inprocessapproach,studentsbecomethemainbodyofclasswhichfullyencouragestheirinitiativeandthinkingcreativeness.Inotherwords,studentscanlearnfromeachotherbymodifyingothers’writingandimprovetheirwritingability.

Inwritingteaching,processapproachaskstomodifymorethanonceandagoodproofreadingofwritings.Tostudyproofreadingisoneofthemostimportantpartsinprocessapproach.

2.1.2Learner-centeredteachingmethod

ComparedtoTeacher-centeredteachingmodel,Learner-centeredteachingmodelconcernedthestudents’realityandcertainenvironment,whichhelpsencouragetheinitiativeofstudentsinwriting.Andteachersplaytheroleasaguide,whosetasksareprovidingasuitableandgoodlanguageenvironmentforstudents.Sothatstudentscanexpressthemselvesfreely.Learner-centeredteachingmodelcannotonlyimprovetheinitiativeofstudentsself-learningandinnovativelearning.Thistheoryaddsmorepossibilitytopeerproofreadingapplyinginwritingteaching.

2.1.3Threetypesoffeedback

Inteachingprocess,feedbackisoneofthemostimportantwaytoimprovelearners’learningabilityandtoreinforcelearning.Nowadays,inwritingteachingclassinourcountry,teacherfeedbackisstillthemainfeedbackwayandthepracticesofpeerfeedbackandnetworkfeedbackarefewer.

Teacherfeedback

Teacherfeedbackistheteacher-to-studentsinglewaythatteachermodifiesstudents’writingandthenstudentsgetthefeedback.Theadvantageofteacherfeedbackisthattheteacher’smodificationsaremoreauthoritativewhilethemaindisadvantageisthatitusuallycostsabundantoftimeinmodifyingstudents’writings.Andontheotherhand,studentsoftenneglectteacher’sfeedback.Thisunidirectionalwayoffeedbackandpassiveacceptancecannotinspirestudents’intereststowardswriting（Zhou,2013）.

Peerfeedback/proofreading

Inpeerproofreadingprocess,studentscantalkoveranddiscusstheirwritings.Everystudentcanexpresstheirownopinionfreelyandstudents’autonomouslearningabilityandteamcooperationcanbeimproved.However,althoughpeerproofreadingisagoodwaytoteacherfeedback’sdrawback,ithassomeboundedness.Forexample,modification,fairnessandeffectivenessofpeerproofreadingcannotbemadesure.Networkfeedback

Inrecentyears,withthedevelopmentofInternet,networkfeedbackbecomespopularamongstudents.StudentsputtheirwritingsonInternetandgetfeedback.Thiswayisquickerandmoreeffective.Butstudentsmaylackofinterchangewithothersandthemodificationoffeedbackissuspectable.

2.1.4Socialandaffectivestrategyinlearningstrategy

Social-affectivestrategiesrefertotheinteractionmethodsthatlearnersuseinlearninglanguages（Liu,2008）.Social-affectivestrategyisusedforadjustinglearners’emotion,motivationandattitude.Atthesametime,thestrategyprovidesmoreopportunitiesoflanguagelearningandpracticingintheirlearningprocess,includingstudying,clarifyingquestionsandaskingforhelp.Peerproofreadingisagoodreflectionofthisthestrategy.

2.2Formerresearch

OverseasstudiesontheattitudestowardspeerproofreadinginwritinginEFLwritingpracticefocusontheeffectivenessofcommentremarkandthestudents’attitudes.Firstly,manyoverseasscholarshaveawidestudiesonthewritingmodificationeffectivenessofpeerproofreading.Somepeerproofreadinghelpsstudentsimprovetheaccuracyoftheuseoflanguages,thelogicalthinkingandanalyzingabilitywhilesomestudiesfoundthatpeerproofreadinghaslittleinfluenceinwriting.

Zhang（1995）investigated81studentsfromdifferentbackgrounds.Thestudentswereaskedtochoosebetweenteacher’sproofreadingandpeerproofreading.Theresultshowedthat94%preferredtoteacher’sproofreading.TsuiandNg（2000）gotthesameresultafteraninvestigationamongaHKmiddleschool.

However,inthesestudies,studentswereonlygiventwochoice:

teacher’sproofreadingorpeerproofreadingandtheymustchoiceoneoftwo.Insuchasituation,moststudentswouldchoosethemoreauthoritativeanswer---teacher’sproofreading.Thereforethesestudiesarenotsoreasonableandcannotreflecttherealvalueofpeerproofreading.

Berg（1999）had46studentsfrom16countriesdopeerproofreadinginhisclassfortwosemestersandconcludedthatpeerproofreadingcannotonlyimprovetheabilityofwriting,butalsodevelopthestudents’criticalthinking.SaitoandFujita（2004）cametotheconclusionthattheperformanceofstudentsmatteredlittleinstudents’attitudestowardspeerproofreadingandintheirstudy,studentsapprovedofpeerproofreading.Andmanyotherstudiesalsogotthesimilarresult.Allofthesestudiesshowthatpeerproofreadingisacomplicatedprocess.Manyfactorstakeeffectsinpeerproofreading,suchasculturebackgroundsandlanguagelevelof