EFL<中國>語境下二語寫作糾正性反饋機制研究(英文版)
內容大鋼
國內外相關學者在二語習得和二語寫作領域對糾正性反饋問題進行了持續研究。然而，對於糾正性反饋的效應，迄今仍未形成一致性結論。糾正性反饋的參與主體具有「雙元性」，即考慮到糾正性反饋的特性，有效的糾正反饋需要教學者和學習者的共同參與。這意味著參與雙方的偏好、經驗和積極性等個體特徵對糾正性反饋的效果具有明顯影響。顯然，二語教學者和學習者對糾正性反饋的認知偏差實際上導致了糾正性反饋研究和實踐的困境：一方面，糾正性反饋具有認知的同質性，所有參與者都認可其在寫作精確度提高方面的積極作用；另一方面，糾正性反饋具有認知的異質性，不同參與者對其影響路徑和程度的認知存在明顯個體性；這一共性與個性的矛盾加劇了糾正性反饋研究的困難性。
作者介紹
王昕
王昕，山東青島人，2009年獲青島大學英語學士學位，2013年獲美國北亞利桑那大學應用語言學和第二外語教學雙碩士學位，2017年獲美國北亞利桑那大學教育博士學位。于2007年被選為交換生公派赴美國密蘇里州立大學交流學習。美國應用語言學，語料庫語言學和二語寫作協會成員。現為青島大學外語學院助理教授。主要研究領域為應用語言學、語料庫語言學、二語習得。長期跟蹤應用語言學領域研究動態，具有紮實的研究基礎和研究經驗。公開發表國際學術期刊論文及會議論文10余篇，參與國內外人文社科項目5項。目前主要從事口譯及學術論文寫作的教學與研究工作。
目錄
Chapter 1 : Introduction
1.1 Context Analysis
1.1.1 EFL Context in China
1.1.2 Context of the Study
1.2 Outline of the Study
Chapter 2 : Literature Review
2.l Form-focused Instruction（FFI）in SLA
2.1.1 Naturalistic Exposure vs.Formal Instruction
2.1.2 Focus on Forms（FonFs） vs.Focus on Form（FonF）
2.1.3 Explicit vs.Implicit Knowledge and Learning
2.1.4 The Role of Grammar Instruction in Pedagogy
2.2 Positive Evidence vs.Negative Evidence in SLA
2.3 Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing
2.3.1 Positions on Corrective Feedback in L2 Learning
2.3.1.1 Arguments against Corrective Feedback
2.3.1.2 Arguments for Corrective Feedback
2.3.1.3 Types of Corrective Feedback
2.3.2 Perceptions of Corrective Feedback in L2 Learning
2.3.2.1 Negative Perceptions
2.3.2.2 Positive Perceptions
2.3.3 Factors in Relation to Corrective Feedback
2.3.3.1 Prior Learning Experiences
2.3.3.2 Proficiency Level
2.3.3.3 Cultural Factor
2.4 Next Step for Classroom Practice
2.4.1 Challenges
Chapter 3 : Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
3.2 Participants
3.3 Dependent and Independent Variables
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis
3.5 Research Question # 1
3.5.1 Data Collection
3.5.2 Data Analysis
3.6 Research Question # 2 & # 3
3.6.1 Questionnaires
3.6.1.1 Data Collection
3.6.1.2 Data Analysis
3.6.2 Interview
3.6.2.1 Data Collection
3.6.2.2 Data Analysis
3.6.3 Classroom Observation
Chapter 4: Quantitative Results: Pretest, Posttest and Delayed Posttest
4.1 RQ1 : Overall Effectiveness of CF and the Type of CF in Relation to Students'Improvement in L2 Writing Accuracy
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics for Indirect Corrective Feedback （ Indirect CF） Group
4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics for Feedback on Content （FC） Group
4.1.3 Descriptive Statistics for Direct Corrective Feedback （Direct CF） Group
4.1.4 Descriptive Statistics for Across Group Comparison
4.1.5 Inferential Statistics for Within Group Comparisons on Overall Errors
4.1.6 Inferential Statistics for Within Group Comparisons on Individual Errors
4.1.7 Inferential Statistics for Across Group Comparisons on Overall Errors
4.1.8 Inferential Statistics for Across Group Comparison on Individual Errors
Chapter 5 : Mixed Methods Results: Questionnaires
5.1 Results for Questionnaire 1
5.1.1 Responses from Indirect CF Group
5.1.2 Responses from Content Feedback （FC）Group
5.1.3 Responses from Direct CF Group
5.1 .g Comparison of Results Across The Three Groups
5.2 Results for Questionnaire
5.2.1 Responses from Indirect CF Group
5.2.2 Responses from Content Feedback （FC） Group
5.2.3 Responses from Direct CF Group
5.2.4 Comparison of Results Across the Three Groups
5.3 Student Responses to the Open-ended Questions in Questionnaire 1
5.3.1 Indirect CF Group
5.3.2 Content Feedback （FC） Group
5.3.3 Direct CF Group
Chapter 6 : Qualitative Results: Interviews and Classroom Observation
6.1 Responses to Student Interview
6.1.1 Question 1
6.1.2 Question 2
6.1.3 Question 3
6.1.4 Question 4
6.1.5 Question 5
6.1.6 Question 6
6.1.7 Question 7
6.2 Responses to Teacher Interview
6.3 Report from Classroom Observation
Chapter 7 : Discussion
7.1 Quantitative Results
7.1.1 Time Effect of Feedback on Overall Errors for Each Group
7.1.2 Time Effect of Feedback on Individual Error Types for Each Group
7.1.3 Group Difference of Feedback on Overall Errors
7.1.4 Group Difference of Feedback on Individual Error Types
7.1.5 Conclusion
7.1.5.1 Potential Factors and Reasons
7.2 Mixed-methods Results
7.7.1 Questionnaire 1
7.2.2 Questionnaire 2
7.2.3 Conclusion
7.3 Qualitative Results
Chapter 8 :Implications, Recommendations and Conclusion
8.1 Summary of Results
8.2 Pedagogical Implications and Recommendation for EFL Teachers
8.2.1 Considering Learner Factors
8.2.2 Developing Self-correction Strategies
8.2.3 Focused CF Instead of Comprehensive Correction
8.2.4 Integrating Grammar Instruction
8.2.5 Designing Appropriate Learning Materials in Class
8.3 Strength
8.4 Limitations
8.5 Future Direction
8.6 Conclusion
References
Appendix A Grading Criteria for Linguistic Accuracy
Appendix B Test Prompts
Appendix C Questionnaires
Appendix D Interview Questions in Chinese
Appendix E Examples of Student Errors Across Pretest, Posttest, and Delayed Posttest in the Three Groups
Appendix F Text Lengths
Appendix G Examples of Students' Responses to the Open-ended Questions In Questionnaire One
Appendix H Abbreviations
[