【作者】 杨静；

【导师】 谈言玲； 韩炳华；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 教育硕士（专业学位）， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 许多研究认为范文作为一种纠正书面反馈的形式,有助于学生的写作,因为这种反馈可以通过设计任务来推动学生对于意义和形式的关注。国外的研究主要关注注意在范文写作中的作用,而国内的研究则集中在范文的背诵和模仿对学生写作的影响上,某种程度上,忽视了学生对于范文的理解和加工。因此,本研究主要关注学生对语言特征的注意,目的在于推动学生主动识别和理解范文。本研究旨在回答以下四个问题:1.不同水平的学生在未接受范文前的写作阶段会注意到哪些问题?2.不同水平的学生在将自己的作文与范文进行比较时会注意到哪些问题?3.经过写作阶段和比较阶段,范文对学生后续作文修改产生哪些影响?4.学生对范文的态度如何影响他们后续作文的修改效果?参加者共60名学生,来自安徽省的一所初中,其中30人来自一年级,30人来自三年级。来自一年级的学生被认为是低水平,来自三年级的学生被认为是高水平。为了探究有指导对于注意的作用,实验又将一年级和三年级分别分为三组(有指导组、无引导组和对照组)。为回答以上四个问题,本研究设计了写作,对比和修订三个阶段,探讨不同水平的参与者在三个写作环节对于语言特征的注意以及这种注意对于后续写作的影响,并得出以下研究发现:第一,不论英语水平的高低,参与者在写作时注意到的大多都是词汇方面的语言问题。此外,低水平组在写作过程注意到的语言方面存在的问题数量明显多于高水平,并且这种差异具有显著性。第二,在对比阶段,参与者注意到的仍然大多是词汇问题,但与写作阶段不同的是,他们注意到了更多的语法、内容方面的问题。此外,参与者水平的高低对于注意到的问题特征的种类具有显著性影响,结果表明:高水平组注意到了更多词汇方面的问题。同时无论在高水平组还是在低水平组,有指导组都比无指导组注意到了更多的问题,并且这种差异具有显著性。第三,参与者在重写自己的作文时,实验组比对照组明显解决了更多的语言方面的问题,并且两组解决问题的数量具有显著性差异,从而证实了范文作为一种书面反馈形式的有效性。此外,高水平组比低水平组解决了更多的问题,并且问题的数量具有显著性差异。同时对于低水平组而言,有指导组比无指导组解决到了更多的问题,并且数量具有显著性差异。但是对于高水平组而言,尽管有指导组比无指导组解决了更多的问题,但是两者数量不具有显著性差异,说明指导对于低水平的学生更有价值。第四,参与者总体上对于接受范文的积极性不高。而高水平组对于范文的态度较积极,因此在重写作文时明显修改了更多的问题。本研究启示我们,首先我们要清晰地意识到范文的选择要适合学生的英语水平,其次根据目标学生的言语水平,对于范文应预先评估和调整难度,最后为了高效使用范文,应为学生提供适当的练习和指导。更多还原

【Abstract】 Many researches acknowledged that models as a form of written corrective feedback are a valid pedagogical instrument for assisting students’ writing because this type of feedback exploits the meaning-driven as well as form-focused potential by means of task design.Foreign researches focused on the role of noticing with the assistance of models,while domestic studies mainly focused on the influence of the recitation and imitation of models on students’ writing and ignored students’ understanding and processing of models.To bridge the gap,this study explored students’ noticing of linguistic features,aiming to give students a push to identify and understand models.Four research questions to be addressed are listed in the following:1.What aspects of language do students of different proficiency levels notice while writing their compositions?2.What aspects of language do students of different proficiency levels notice while comparing their texts to models?3.What are the effects of Stage 1(composing)and Stage 2(comparison)noticing on subsequent revisions?4.How does the participants’ attitude affect performance in subsequent revisions?All participants were from a junior high school in Anhui province.They were 60 students,30 of whom were in Grade One,and 30 of whom came from Grade Three.The students from Grade One were considered as low proficiency while those from Grade Three were regarded as high proficiency.In order to measure the function of guided noticing,both Grade One and Grade Three were respectively divided into three groups(each with 10 students in the guided group,unguided group and control group).The study investigated what participants of different proficiency levels notice when writing their compositions during the three stages,which included the output stage,the comparison stage and the delayed revision stage.The study also explored how the noticing affected their subsequent revisions.Some main findings are summarized below.First,in the writing stage,regardless of English proficiency,participants noticed mainly lexical problems.Because of lack of knowledge,lower proficiency group noticed more problematic features than higher proficiency group and this gap was significant.Second,in the comparing stage,the largest proportion of noticing was lexical-oriented,and participants had paid more attention to grammar,content features in comparing stage than in writing stage.Moreover,the participants’ proficiency has a significant effect on the different categories of noticed problematic features,and higher proficiency students noticed more content aspects.Besides,participants under guidance noticed more problematic features and this difference between guided participants and unguided participants was significant both in lower proficiency group and in higher proficiency group.Third,the participants in the experiment group modified more problematic features when rewrote their texts and this difference between the experiment group and the control group was significant,which confirmed the effectiveness of the use of models.Moreover,higher proficiency group solved more problematic features than lower proficiency group and the difference was significant.Besides,at lower proficiency level,guided students solved more problematic features and there was a significant difference between unguided group and guided group.However,at higher proficiency level,though students in the guided group incorporated more features than students in the unguided group,this gap was not significant,which indicates that guidance was more useful for lower proficiency level students.Finally,participants generally expressed their negative attitudes towards models,but higher proficiency participants had more positive beliefs and incorporated more solutions into subsequent revisions.The implications for the further research and the teaching practice were summarized below.Firstly,we must be clearly aware that writing models should be suitable for students’English proficiency levels.Secondly,the perceived difficulties of the writing models should be carefully assessed and adjusted according to the language proficiency levels of the target students in advance.Finally,to use models effectively,it would be helpful to give students extended practice and appropriate guidance.更多还原