| 中文题名： | 合作型和自主型修改模式对高中生英语写作修正表现的影响研究 |
| 姓名： | |
| 保密级别： | 公开 |
| 论文语种： | 中文 |
| 学科代码： | 045108 |
| 学科专业： | |
| 学生类型： | 硕士 |
| 学位： | 教育硕士 |
| 学位类型： | |
| 学位年度： | 2022 |
| 校区： | |
| 学院： | |
| 研究方向： | 英语教学 |
| 第一导师姓名： | |
| 第一导师单位： | |
| 提交日期： | 2022-06-15 |
| 答辩日期： | 2022-06-15 |
| 外文题名： | Effects of Collaborative and Individual Revision on Senior High School Students' English Writing Corrective Performance |
| 中文关键词： | |
| 外文关键词： | Writing corrective feedback ; Collaborative revision ; Individual revision ; Writing corrective performance ; Senior high EFL learners |
| 中文摘要： |
只有学生注意并吸收内化教师所给的反馈以后才能发挥出反馈的最大效用。近年来，社会文化理论在写作教学领域重新得到关注。从理论上来说，合作型修改模式聚焦过程写作法中的修改阶段，通过提供教师支架以及同伴互动的机会，提高教师写作反馈的有效性，促进学生语言能力的发展。然而目前看来，国内已有研究验证合作型修改模式在高中英语写作教学中的应用效果还不够充分，笔者认为在国内高中英语教学多为大班制教学的背景下，有必要就合作型修改模式和传统的自主型修改模式进行实验对比，为缓解教师反馈压力、提升教师的写作教学效果予以启示。
﹀
本研究旨在探索合作型和自主型修改模式下学生的写作修正表现及学生对两种修改模式的态度和看法，以探究其实际教学意义。研究问题如下：1. 合作型和自主型修改模式哪种修改模式更有利于提高学生的英语写作总体成绩？2. 合作型和自主型修改模式在学生写作准确度、流利度和复杂度上是否存在差异？3. 学生对两种修改模式的态度和看法如何？本研究以某校高二年级一个自然班共52名学生为实验对象，以“前测-干预-后测”的实验范式，设置对照组（自主修改组）和实验组（合作修改组），开展为期八周的干预实验。合作组按照上学期末成绩两两搭配为高—中水平组和中—低水平组，以符合“与更有能力的同伴合作”的原则。实验包含四次写作任务，共收集到受试初稿和修改稿共260份。笔者运用相关量性分析软件分析两组学生前后测作文各项指标的差异。随后，从两个组中分别选取高、中、低三个水平的学生（共7名，其中合作组为4名）参与访谈，获取质性数据以揭示两种修改模式的优缺点。 通过以上数据分析，笔者发现，在八周的实验以后：（1）不管是什么修改模式，学生都难以在短期内提高作文整体成绩；（2）两组学生写作准确度均有所提高，合作组表现更佳；流利度组间差异并不显著，但组内对比来看，自主修改组流利度略微降低，而合作修改组能够维持前测水平；两组学生的词汇复杂度均有所提高，自主修改组的增长幅度更大，而句法复杂度的差异两组均不明显；（3）两组学生对各自的修改模式的态度不一，其中学生的语言水平和情感因素是主要影响因素。笔者在此基础上针对写作反馈和写作修改提出几点启示：一是教师应坚持给学生以写作反馈，在给予反馈的基础上，要考虑反馈内容和策略多样化；二是教师根据学生的语言水平和个性特点将合作修改模式和自主修改模式相结合，合理使用同伴支架；三是应注重合作修改过程中的平等性、协商性和互动性。 |
| 外文摘要： |
Only when students notice and internalize the teacher feedback can the feedback be effective. In recent years, sociocultural theory has gained renewed attention in the field of writing teaching. Theoretically, collaborative revision focuses on the revision stage of the process approach, and is regarded as a good way to improve the effectiveness of teacher feedback and promote students’ language development by providing support given by teachers and more capable peers together with the opportunity for peer interaction. However, the existing studies at home failed to thoroughly verify the application effect of collaborative revision in high school English writing teaching. The researcher assumes that it is worth making an experimental comparison between collaborative revision and traditional individual revision under the background of English teaching in large-size classes in high school in China, so as to provide enlightenment to relieve teachers’ feedback pressure and improve teaching effects.
﹀
This study aims to explore students’ writing corrective performance under the two revision modes and their attitudes towards these two modes, so as to explore their practical teaching significance. Specifically, the research questions of this thesis include: 1. Which is more beneficial to improving students’ overall English writing scores between collaborative and individual revision? 2. To what extent do collaborative revision and individual revision influence students’ corrective performance in terms of accuracy, fluency and complexity? 3. What are students’ attitudes towards the two revision modes? The targeted subjects of the study were fifty-two sophomore students from an intact class in a senior high school. The quasi-experiment method with a “pretest-intervention-post test” paradigm was employed within eight weeks. The control group adopted the individual revision mode while the experimental group adopted the collaborative revision mode. Considering the principle of “cooperating with more capable peers”, the experimental group were divided into high-middle level group and medium-low level group according to their final English scores of the last semester. The two groups were supposed to finish four writing tasks and the following revision during the test, and a total of 260 writings including the drafts and revised versions were collected. The researcher used relevant quantitative analysis software to analyze the differences between the two groups in terms of measurement indicators of writing qualities. Subsequently, 7 students from the two groups with high, medium and low language levels (including 4 from the experimental group) were selected to engage in the follow-up interview to obtain qualitative data in order to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the two revision modes. Based on the above data analysis, the researcher found that after the eight-week experiment: (1) No matter what the revision mode was, it was difficult for the students to improve their overall score in the short term. (2) The writing accuracy of both groups was improved, and the experimental group performs better; no significant differences in fluency were found between the two groups, but the control group showed a slight decrease in fluency, while the experimental group maintained the pretest level; the lexical complexity of the two groups increased, but the growth of the control group was greater; the difference of syntactic complexity was not statistically obvious between the two groups. (3) The two groups had different attitudes towards their revision modes, of which the language proficiency and emotional factors were the main influencing factors. On this basis, the author puts forward some suggestions for writing feedback and revision: firstly, teachers could persist with giving students writing corrective feedback, and individualize the teacher feedback focus and strategies; secondly, the teacher could combine individual and collaborative revision according to the students’ language proficiency and personalities, and take advantage of peer scaffolding appropriately; thirdly, equality, negotiability and interactivity should be taken into consideration when we implement collaborative revision. |
| 参考文献总数： | 89 |
| 馆藏地： | 总馆B301 |
| 馆藏号： | 硕045108/22022Z |
| 开放日期： | 2023-06-15 |
谷歌
