【作者】 周辉；

【导师】 张红霞；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 英语学习是中国大学课程的重要组成部分。而在听、说、读、写四个基本技能中,写作技能和写作技能的发展是一直困扰大学教师和大学生的难题。为了改善这个状况,实践者们和研究者们一直努力试图找到有效的写作方法,过程写作法就是其中之一。对于过程写作法,反馈和修改是它的两个核心要素。反馈有不同的种类,其中教师反馈和同伴反馈最受关注。但是国内并没有对反馈,尤其同伴反馈进行深入的实践或研究。尽管国外有大量的相关研究,但是也没有得出统一的结论。基于这一情况,本文试图探索同伴互评活动对不同写作水平的非英语专业大学生作文修改的影响。研究问题如下：1)同伴互评对非英语专业大学生作文修改有怎样的帮助?体现在哪些写作纬度(结构、内容、句子、词汇、写作技术规范)?2)同伴互评对不同写作水平的非英语专业大学生作文的修改有怎样的帮助并且体现在哪些写作纬度?针对以上问题,笔者对所选班级40名受试进行了持续11周的实证研究。在第一周,对学生进行了前测、培训以及根据学生写作水平进行分组。在接下来六周,受试要求完成三篇作文并且开展同伴互评活动。在第八周,对受试进行后测、问卷调查和访谈。结论如下：1)同伴互评有助于非英语专业大学生对自己文章的修改。学生修改作文时接受了74%的同伴反馈并且学生后测平均分数较前测提高了1.5分。另外通过对问卷和访谈的分析,学生认为在同伴互评过程中给同伴反馈和读同伴反馈都有助于作文的修改,但相比较而言前者更有助于文章修改。就写作各维度而言,学生在内容、结构、句子、词汇和写作技术规范五个维度都有改善,尤其是句子以及句子以下层面改善最大。学生得到的96.7%的同伴反馈和修改时接受的97.5%的反馈集中在写作技术规范、词汇还有句子维度。和前测相比,在后测中各个写作维度的平均分都有所增加,尤其在写作技术规范、词汇还有句子维度。再者,在问卷和访谈中,学生指出他们得到的同伴反馈多局限于文章表面层面的问题,并且同伴反馈引发的多是文章句子或句子以下层面修改。2)同伴互评有助于不同写作水平非英语专业大学生对文章的修改,就不同写作水平的学生而言存在着细微的差别。修改作文时,高水平组得到的反馈最少,但他们接受的反馈比例最高。而通过与前测比较,低水平者写作水平提高最多。对于同伴互评中给反馈和读同伴的反馈,各写作水平的同学都认为前者更有助于作文修改。就写作各维度而言,各写作水平的学生修改作文时接受的句子层面的反馈最多,其次写作技术规范层面,次之词汇。根据对前测、后测的分析,中、高写作水平的学生均是在写作技术规范维度改善最多,而低水平者在词汇维度改善最多,但低水平者在结构维度也有很大进步。对于同伴互评中给同伴反馈,各写作水平者认为给同伴反馈更有助于他们对文章内容的修改。通过访谈了解到,高写作水平者认为通过读别人的文章内容给反馈,他们可以更好的充实自己的文章内容,而低写作水平者认为通过读他们知道写什么。另外各写作水平者都指出同伴反馈对作文修改的影响主要局限于句子或句子以下层面,因为由于各写作水平的学生水平有限,他们给出的反馈也大都局限于句子或句子以下层面的问题。以上研究结果对大学英语写作教学和学习有一些指导意义。同伴互评应该在写作教学中推广应用,并且建议作为教师反馈的补充,而教师反馈应该更侧重文章的内容和结构维度。另外在同伴互评过程中,应该多组之间互换文章进行互评,给学生机会多读同伴的文章。更多还原

【Abstract】 In China, English learning is an essential part of the college curriculum. Among the four basic skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing, writing and its development has been a big headache and kept troubling college teachers and students. To improve the situation, practitioners and researchers have been trying very hard to find effective approaches. One of the approaches is the process approach. In the process approach, feedback and revision are two central elements.There are various kinds of feedback, among which teacher feedback and peer feedback have aroused the most attention. However, feedback on writing, especially peer feedback, has not been well-researched or practiced in China. Although there have been a number of studies aboard, no unified conclusions have been drawn.Considering this phenomenon, the present study attempted to probe into the effects of peer feedback on composition revision of non-English majors of different writing proficiency levels. The research questions are as follows:1) How effective would peer feedback activities be for non-English majors in revising their compositions? And in which writing dimensions (organization, content, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics)?2) Would peer feedback activities be effective for all levels of writing proficiency in all the writing dimensions investigated?To answer the research questions, the author conducted an 11-week empirical study on one class of 40 subjects. In the first week, pretest, pretraining the subjects and grouping the subjects according to their writing proficiency levels were carried out. Then in the following six weeks, the subjects were to finish three compositions and peer feedback would be carried out. In the eighth week, posttest, questionnaire and interviews would be conducted.The findings are yielded as follows:1) Peer feedback activities were effective for the non-English majors in revising their compositions, because 74% of peer feedback suggestions received were accepted and incorporated into their second drafts and the average score of all the subjects’ writing performances in the posttest increased by 1.5 compared with that of pretest. Moreover, through the analysis of the questionnaire and interviews, it could be concluded that students held giving and reading peer feedback were helpful for them to revise their compositions. But comparatively speaking, giving peer feedback was more effective.As for the writing dimensions researched, there was improvement in all the five writing dimensions, but mainly in the dimensions of grammar, vocabulary and mechanics.96.7% of peer feedback suggestions received and 97.5% of peer feedback suggestions incorporated focused on the surface changes. Compared with the pretest, there was improvement in all the writing dimensions in the posttest, especially in the dimensions of mechanics, vocabulary and grammar. Moreover, as the questionnaire and interviews revealed, students also claimed that the peer feedback suggestions received were mainly restricted to the surface problems and reading peer feedback was mostly helpful for them to revise writing on the surface level.(2) Peer feedback activities were effective for all levels of writing proficiency in revising their compositions. But still slight differences existed among different writing proficiency levels. While revising, the upper-intermediate students received the least amount of feedback while they incorporated the most. At the same time, the comparing of the scores of pretest and posttest showed that the lower-intermediate students improved the most. As for giving and reading peer feedback, all of the students held that the former was more effective for them to revise.As for the writing dimensions, the students of different levels all received and incorporated the most feedback on grammar, mechanics and vocabulary in the descending order. The scores of the two tests demonstrated that the students of middle-intermediate writing proficiency level and upper-intermediate writing proficiency level have made the most improvement in the writing dimension of mechanics. And the lower-intermediate students improved the most in the dimension of vocabulary, then in organization. Through interviews, the upper-intermediate ones held that giving feedback enabled them to enrich the content of their compositions while the ones of lower-intermediate level claimed they got to know what to write through reading. What’s more, in the interviews, students of all levels pointed out the benefits gained from reading peer feedback were mainly restricted to surface problems, for due to their limited ability, peer feedback received chiefly focused on the writing dimensions of surface level.The above findings have several implications for EFL college instruction and learning in China. First, peer feedback activities should be implemented in classes and desirably should be complemented together with teacher feedback, which should focus more on the writing dimensions of content and organization. Second, compositions should be exchanged among more groups, enabling students to read more of their peers’compositions.更多还原