- 无标题文档
查看论文信息

中文题名:

 异质分组下同伴反馈对高中英语学习者 写作能力影响的实验研究    

姓名:

 刘雨柔    

学号:

 20212105033    

保密级别:

 公开    

论文语种:

 chi    

学科代码:

 045108    

学科名称:

 教育学 - 教育 - 学科教学(英语)    

学生类型:

 硕士    

学位:

 教育硕士    

学位类型:

 专业学位    

学位年度:

 2023    

学校:

 石河子大学    

院系:

 外国语学院    

专业:

 教育    

研究方向:

 学科教学(英语)    

第一导师姓名:

 骆北刚    

第一导师单位:

 石河子大学    

完成日期:

 2023-05-30    

答辩日期:

 2023-05-10    

外文题名:

 A Research on the Effect of Peer Feedback Based on Heterogeneous Grouping on Senior High School English Learners’ Writing Ability    

中文关键词:

 异质分组 ; 同伴反馈 ; 高中英语 ; 写作能力     

外文关键词:

 heterogeneous grouping ; peer feedback ; senior English ; writing ability     

中文摘要:

反馈是促进学生发展的重要途径,在外语写作中起着不可或缺的作用。在我国英语教学中,教师通常将同伴反馈运用于写作课堂中,然而,教师在实践中对同伴成员选择和分组的随机性影响了同伴反馈的有效性;同时,教师对学生在智力因素和非智力因素中的个体差异没有给予明确地关注。因此,同伴反馈在写作教学中的应用效果仍需进一步探索。此外,《高中英语课程标准(2017年版2020年修订)》提出高中英语课程既要关注学生的全面发展,又要满足学生的个性发展需求,为了促进学生全面而有个性化的发展,促进其写作能力的提高,本文旨在将异质分组下的同伴反馈教学模式应用于高中英语写作教学中,以探究其对高中英语学习者写作能力的影响。

本研究基于写作教学理论、合作学习理论和社会文化理论,将文献研究法、教育实验法、问卷调查法和测试法作为研究方法,应用月考测试卷、学习动机问卷调查表、写作同伴反馈表、SPSS27.0等研究工具,从新疆维吾尔自治区石河子市M中学高二年级6班和8班的90名英语学习者中遴选40名被试进行实验研究,具体包括三个问题:第一,高语言水平、低动机水平合作小组(简称HPLM小组)同伴反馈对被试写作能力有什么影响?该问题包含三个子维度,即HPLM小组同伴反馈对被试的写作内容、写作形式和写作语言有什么影响?第二,低语言水平、高动机水平合作小组(简称LPHM小组)同伴反馈对被试写作能力有什么影响?该问题包含三个子维度,即LPHM小组同伴反馈对被试的写作内容、写作形式和写作语言有什么影响?第三,HPLM和LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作能力的影响存在什么差异?该问题包含三个子维度,即HPLM和LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作内容、写作形式和写作语言的影响存在什么差异?

研究发现:第一,HPLM小组同伴反馈对被试写作能力有一定的积极影响,具体表现在三个方面:1.HPLM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作内容成绩具有显著的提升作用,其前后测的均值差为-1.9,显著性为0.000。2.HPLM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作形式成绩具有显著的提升作用,其前后测的均值差为-1.35 ,显著性为0.000。3.HPLM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作语言成绩具有显著的提升作用,其前后测的均值差为-6.3,显著性为0.000。第二,LPHM小组同伴反馈对被试写作能力提升的作用显著,具体表现在三个方面:1.LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作内容成绩的提升作用显著,其前后测的均值差为-1.15,显著性为0.001。2.LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作形式成绩的提升作用显著,其前后测的均值差为-1.1,显著性为0.000。3.LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作语言成绩的提升作用显著,其前后测的均值差为-03.7,显著性为0.000。第三,HPLM和LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作能力的影响存在一定的差异,具体表现在三个方面:1.HPLM和LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作内容成绩的提高具有积极作用,但HPLM和LPHM小组被试写作内容后测成绩差异较小,其后测的均值差为1.25,显著性值为0.169,无显著性差异。2.HPLM和LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作形式成绩的提高具有积极作用,但HPLM和LPHM小组被试写作形式后测成绩差异较小,其后测的均值差为0.85,显著性值为0.324,无显著性差异。3.HPLM和LPHM合作小组同伴反馈对被试写作语言成绩的提高有一定的影响,HPLM和LPHM小组被试写作语言后测成绩差异较大,其后测的均值差为2.45,显著性值为0.000,具有显著性差异。

异质分组下同伴反馈对学生写作能力产生的影响具有差异性,据此研究者提出以下三点教学建议:第一,教师应深刻理解异质分组下同伴反馈的教学干预方式对高中英语学习者写作能力产生影响的机制。第二,教师在教学中应根据学生学情采取合适的分组方式进行写作同伴反馈。第三,教师对异质分组下同伴反馈的探究有助于提高学习者写作能力的同时,也有助于提高教师的写作教学能力。

外文摘要:

Feedback is an important way to promote students' development and plays an indispensable role in foreign language writing. In English teaching in China, teachers often use peer feedback in writing classes. However, the randomness of teacher selection and grouping of peer members in practice affects the effectiveness of peer feedback. At the same time, teachers did not pay explicit attention to the individual differences between students' intellectual or non intellectual factors. Therefore, the application effect of peer feedback in writing teaching still needs further exploration. In addition, the General Senior High School Curriculum Standards (2017 Edition, 2020 Revision) proposes that senior high school English courses should not only focus on the overall development of students, but also meet their individual development needs. In order to promote students' comprehensive and personalized development and improve their writing skills, this thesis aims to apply the peer feedback teaching model under heterogeneous grouping to the teaching of senior high school English writing, and aims to explore its impact on senior high school English learners' writing ability.

The findings of the study are as follows: First, peer feedback from HPLM groups has a certain positive impact on the writing ability of subjects, specifically manifested in three aspects: 1. Peer feedback from HPLM cooperative groups has a significant improvement effect on the writing content performance of subjects, with a mean difference of -1.9 on the pretest and post-test, and a significant difference of 0.000. 2. Peer feedback from HPLM cooperative groups has a significant improvement effect on subjects' writing form performance, with a mean difference of -1.35 between the pre-test and post-test, and a significant difference of 0.000. 3. Peer feedback from HPLM cooperative groups has a significant improvement effect on subjects' writing language performance, with a mean difference of -6.3 between the pre-test and post-test, and a significant difference of 0.000. Secondly, peer feedback from LPHM groups has a significant impact on the improvement of subjects' writing ability, which is manifested in three aspects: 1. Peer feedback from LPHM cooperative groups has a significant impact on the improvement of subjects' writing content performance, with a mean difference of -1.15 on the pretest and post-test, and a significance of 0.001. 2. Peer feedback from LPHM cooperative groups has a significant effect on the improvement of subjects' writing form performance, with a mean difference of - 1.1 between the pre-test and post-test, and a significance of 0.000. 3. Peer feedback from LPHM cooperative groups has a significant impact on the improvement of subjects' writing language performance. The mean difference between the pre-test and post-test is -3.7, with a significance of 0.000. Third, there are certain differences in the impact of peer feedback on writing ability between HPLM and LPHM cooperative groups, specifically manifested in three aspects: 1. HPLM and LPHM cooperative group peer feedback has a positive effect on the improvement of writing content performance of subjects, but there is a small difference in the post-test scores of writing content between HPLM and LPHM group subjects, with a mean difference of 1.25 on the post-test, and a significant value of 0.169, without significant difference. 2. Peer feedback from HPLM and LPHM cooperative groups has a positive effect on the improvement of subjects' writing form scores. However, there is a small difference between HPLM and LPHM group subjects' writing form scores on the post-test, with a mean difference of 0.85 and a significant value of 0.324, indicating no significant difference. 3. Peer feedback from HPLM and LPHM cooperative groups has a certain impact on the improvement of subjects' writing language performance. There is a significant difference between HPLM and LPHM group subjects' writing language post-test scores, with a mean difference of 2.45 and a significant value of 0.000, indicating a significant difference.

The impact of peer feedback on students' writing ability in heterogeneous groups is different. Based on this, researcher propose the following three teaching suggestions: First, teachers should deeply understand the mechanism by which peer feedback teaching interventions in heterogeneous groups affect senior high school English learners' writing ability. Secondly, teachers should adopt appropriate grouping methods to provide writing peer feedback based on students' learning situations in teaching. Thirdly, teachers' exploration of peer feedback in heterogeneous groups can help improve learners' writing skills, as well as teachers' writing teaching abilities.as well as teachers' teaching ability and guidance of practical behavior.

参考文献:

[1]马克思恩格斯全集(第3卷)[M].北京:人民出版社,1972:330

[2]1844年经济学哲学手稿[M].北京:人民出版社,2000:80.

[3]丁锦宏.“分层-协作”教学模式是对个别化教学模式的超越[J]上海教育科研,1999(04):37-38

[4]李映红.体育教学中的“合作学习法”探究[J].教学与管理,2007(21):100-101.

[5]张中原.高中化学合作学习的应用研究[D].西南大学,2009.

[6]徐光华.智力因素与非智力因素的辩证统一关系[J].湖北教育学院学报,1995(01):53-56

[7]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中英语课程标准(2017年版2020年修订)[S].北京:人民教育出版社,2020:69

[8]张军,程晓龙.我国近十年同伴反馈研究:回顾与展望[J].西安外国语大学学报,2020,28(01):48-55.

[9]林小燕体.体育课堂异质分组教学探析[J].山东体育学院学报.2002(1):79—81

[10]李章琼.小组合作学习在高校教学中的运用[J].文学教育(上),2016(10):87-91

[11]布卢姆.如何认识学生的个体差异[J].周南,译.外国教育,1982,(2).

[12]练碧贞等.我校篮球普修课教学现状及改革设想[J].北京体育大学学报,1997(3):5l一52

[13]陆惠珠.素质教育背景下的体育教学中分组教学的研究[J].南京体育学院学报,2002(10)

[14]扈伟.体育系篮球普修课采用异质分组教学实验研究[D].山东师范大学,2005.

[15]陈鸿.分组教学在新课程标准中的尝试[J].新课程(教师版),2007(07):51.

[16]全国科学技术名词审定委员会.教育学名词[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2013:35.

[17]孙素芬.分层教学在高中语文教学中的必要性和策略分析[J].文理导航:上旬,2020(08).

[18]彭晓春.高职“异质分组合作”教学的反思研究──以南华工商学院大学英语大班授课教学实验为例[J].山东商业职业技术学院学报,2011,11(05):63-66.

[19]李欢澄.合作学习理论下异质分组教学模式在滑雪课的应用研究[D].沈阳体育学院,2020.

[20]风笑天.方法论背景中的问卷调查法[J].社会学研究,1994(03):13-18.

[21]莫俊华.同伴互评:提高大学生写作自主性[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2007(03):35-39.

[22]高歌.不同分组条件下同侪反馈对学生英语写作的影响[J].外语学刊,2010(6).

[23]蔡基刚.中国大学生英语写作在线同伴反馈和教师反馈对比研究[J].外语界,2011(2).

[24]周一书.大学英语写作反馈方式的对比研究[J].外语界,2013(3).

[25]张琪.合作学习在初中英语教学中的实践运用-构建课堂“合作型学习小组”的体会[J]. 课程教育研究(新教师教学),2014,000(025):227-227.

[25]袁晓雪.浅谈英语课堂小组合作学习模式下的学困生问题[J].兰州教育学院学报,2014,30(02):127-128+131.

[26]殷志勇.小组合作式写作教学的实践与思考[J].中小学外语教学(中学篇),2008,31(08):33-37.

[27]刘红岚.合作学习在英语写作教学中的实践[J].教育探索,2009,(07):54-55.

[28]郑素梅.运用小组合作学习进行初中英语写作教学的方法探究[J].中小学外语教学(中学篇,2012,35(04):27-33.

[29]谢春林.大学英语写作教学中的小组合作学习方式方法探讨[J].武汉冶金管理干部学院学报,2012,22(04):67-68.

[30]刘红岚.合作学习在英语写作教学中的实践[J].教育探索,2009,(07):54-55.

[31]郑素梅.运用小组合作学习进行初中英语写作教学的方法探究[J].中小学外语教学(中学篇,2012,35(04):27-33.

[32]张晓兰.合作学习在英语专业写作教学中运用的实验研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2006,(03):137-140.

[33]吴育红,顾卫星.合作学习降低非英语专业大学生英语写作焦虑的实证研究[J].外语与外语教学,2011,(06):51.

[34]胡志安,史小平.合作学习在高职院校英语写作教学中的作用[J].中国成人教育,2012,(03):148-150.

[35]江慧萍.浅议合作学习在高职高专英语写作教学中的应用[J].海外英语,2014(11):114-115.

[36]吴荣辉,何高大.合作学习在大学英语写作教学中的应用效应研究[J].外语教学,2014,35(03):44-47.

[37]钟丽.合作学习在初三英语写作教学中的应用[J].中国培训,2015(08):123.

[38]陈思悦.小组合作学习在高中英语写作教学中的应用[J].语言艺术与体育研究,2016,164(7):295.

[39]张红阳.浅谈合作学习在农村初中英语写作教学中的应用[J].英语教师,2017,17(05):83-85.

[40]林频.谈谈文献研究与文献研究法[J].上海少先队研究,2015(01):22-23.

[41]李勇,邓红霞.教师书面修正性反馈对英语写作复杂度的影响[J].外语研究,2012(02):55-62.

[42]金晓宏.非英语专业大学生对不同形式英语写作评改反馈的接受程度研究[J].外语研究,2016,33(05):58-62.

[43]李莉文,刘雪卉.教师反馈与思辨能力培养的个案研究——以英语专业本科毕业论文为例[J].外语界,2018(06):20-27.

[44]董志浩,南潮,刘瑶瑶.教师反馈和同伴反馈对英语专业学生写作自我效能感影响的对比研究[J].湖北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2019,39(02):127-133.

[45]王振宇.提升高中英语写作反馈有效性的探索与思考[J].中小学外语教学(中学篇),2012,35(12):26-30.

[46]冯美娜.英语写作评改方式评析及优化策略研究[J].教学与管理,2016(12):107-110.

[47]高瑛,张福慧,张绍杰,Christian D.Schunn.基于Perceptive互评系统的英语写作同伴反馈效果研究[J].外语电化教学,2018(02):3-9+67.

[48]杨苗.中国英语写作课教师反馈和同侪反馈对比研究[J].现代外语,2006(03):293-301+330.

[49]曹莉.高校英语写作中的同伴反馈与教师反馈对比研究[J].教育现代化,2019,6(12):60-61+67.

[50]荣维东.“过程写作”及其主要模式述评[J].语文学习,2017(07):7-11.

[51]肖福寿,郭昕.Flower & Hayes认知过程模式对写作教学的启示[J].长江大学学报(社科版),2014,37(02):114-115.

[52]杨桂其.合作学习的研究现状[J].考试与评价,2016(03):128.

[53]杨洪江.初中数学教学中的小组合作学习[J].科学中国人,2015.

[54]裴娣娜.教育研究方法导论[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1995:244.

[55] 申亚琳.社会文化理论视角下二语发展实践研究[J].安徽理工大学学报(社会科学版),2021,23(03):58-62.

[56]雷娜,曲维忠,赵春捷,马娜,闫士芳,王爱友,宋晓虹,康倩,刘欣改,江磊.浅析高校异质分组教学对学生自我成绩与意识的影响[J].现代经济信息,2016(19):434.

[57]武和平,韩百敬.应用语言学与二语习得研究中“语言水平”的测量与界定——一项基于文献计量学的研究[J].山东外语教学,2010,31(02):20-25.

[58]崔莹,盖笑松,张绍杰.同伴反馈法的有效性及应用于英语写作教学的可行性探究[J].外语电化教学,2019(02):3-9.

[59]李梅英,吕勤.以写促读——一项英语专业阅读课教学改革的试验[J].山东外语教学,2002(06):41-44.

[60]敖娜仁图雅.中小学生英语阅读素养的内涵[J].英语学习,2017(S1):4-8.

[61]程晓堂.关于当前英语教育政策调整的思考[J].课程.教材.教法,2014,34(05)5:8-64.

[62]日本筑波大学教育学研究会编,现代教育学基础[M],钟启泉,译,上海教育出版社,1986:496.

[63]风笑天.论问卷调查的特点和适用范围[J].华中师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1989(06):24-28

[64]秦晓晴,外语教学研究中的定量数据分析[J].华中理工大学出版社,2003.

[65]Chenoweth,N&J.R.Hayes.Fluency in writing:Generating text in L1and L2[J].Written Communication,2001(1):80-98.

[66]Vygotsky,LS.Mindin Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1978.

[67]Wood,D.Bruner,J.&G.Ross.The role of tutoring in problem solving[J].Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.1976(2):89-100.

[68]Paulus T M.The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing[J].Journal of second language writing,1999,8(3):265-289.

[69]P.Karen Murphy,Jerey A.Greene,Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension[J], Contemporary Educational Psychology,2017:336-355

[70]Burris C C,Heubert JP,Levin HMA.ccelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping[J].American Educational Research Journal,2006,43(1):137-154.

[71]Keh,C.L.Feedback in the writing process:A model and methods for implementation[J]. LF Journal,1990(4).

[72]Mangelsdorf,F.K.(1992).Peer Review in the ESL Composition Classroom:What do the students think,ELT Journal,46(3),274-284

[73]Zhang,S.Reexamining the affective advantage of peer Feedback in the ESL writing class[J].journal of Second Language Writing,1995(3).

[74]E.C.The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality[J].Journal of Second Language Writing,1999(3).

[75]Cresswell,A.(2000).Self-monitoring in student writing:developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal,3,235-244.

[76]Tsui,A.B.M.&M.Ng.Do secondary L2 writers benefit From peer comments[J].Journal of Second Language Writing,2000(2).

[77]Guerrero,M.C.M.de.&O.S.Villamil.Activating the ZPD:Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision[J].Modern Language Journal,2000(1).

[78]Lundstrom K,Baker W.To give better than to receive:The benefits of peer review to reviewers’ own writing[J].Journal of second Language Writing,2009,18(1):30-43

[79]Sloan C C.Types of Feedback in Peer Review and the Effect on Student Motivation and Writing Quality [J],proquest Llc,2017

[80]Patchan M M,Schunn C D,Correnti R J.The nature of feedback:How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions[J].Journal of Educational Psychology,2016,108(8):1098.

[81]Mendonca,C.O.&K.E.Johnson.Peer review negotiations:Revision activities in ESL writing instruction[J].TESOL Quarterly,1994(4).

[82]Falchikov N.Peer feedback marking:Developing peer assessment[J].Innovations in Education and training International,1995,32(2):175-187.

[83]Jacobs G M,Curtis A,Braine G,et al.Feedback on student writing:Taking the middle path[J].Journal of second language writing,1998,7(3):307-317.

[84]Shammout M.The effect of cooperative learning activities on enhancing the writing skills of syrian efl learners at arab international university[J].Theory and Practice in Language Studies,2020,10(7):791-797.

[85]Storch N.Collaborative writing:Product, process,and students’ reflections[J].Journal of second language writing,2005,14(3):153-173.

[86]Shehadeh A.Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writinginL2[J].Journal of second language writing,2011,20(4):286-305.

[87]Dobao,AF,Blum A.Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups:Learners 'attitudes and perceptions[J].[25]System,2013,41(2):365-378.

[88]Chandler J.The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing[J].Journal of second language writing,2003,12(3):267-296.

[89]Hunt G H,Wiseman D G,Touzel T J.Effective teaching:preparation and implementation[M].Charles C Thomas Publisher,2009.

[90]Ruegg R.The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability[J].Linguistics and Education,2015,29:73-82.

[901]Maarof N,Yamat H,Li K L.Role of teacher, peer and teacher-peer feedback in enhancing ESL students’ writing[J].World Applied Sciences Journal,2011,15(1):29-35.

[92]Nelms G.Reassessing Janet Emig's the composing processes of twelfth graders:An historical perspective[J].Rhetoric Review,1994,13(1):108-130.

[93]Murray D.Teach writing as a process not product[J].The leaflet,1972,71(3):11-14.

[94]Lantolf J P,Thorne S L.Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006.

[95]Larsen‐Freeman D E.An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners[J].Language learning,1976,26(1):125-134.

[96]Nihalani N K.The Quest for the L2 Index of Development1[J].RELC Journal,1981,12(2):50-56.

[97]Thomas M.Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research[J].Language learning,1994,44:307-307.

[98]Ridge E.R.Ellis:The study of second language acquisition[J].Per Linguam,1994,10(1).

[99]Davies A,Brown A,Elder C,et al.Dictionary of language testing[M].Cambridge University Press,1999.

[100]Richards J C.Language teaching and applied linguistics[M].1992.

[101]Gardner R C,Lambert W E.Attitudes and motivation in second language learning[J],1972.

[102]Dörnyei Z.Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom[J].The modern language journal,1994, 78(3): 273-284.

[103]Tremblay P F,Gardner R C.Expanding the motivation construct in language learning[J].The modern language journal,1995,79(4):505-518.

[104]McClelland D C,Atkinson J W,Clark R A,et al.Toward a theory of motivation[J].1953.

[105]Papi M.The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety,and motivated behavior:A structural equation modeling approach[J].System,2010,38(3):467-479.

[106]Liu.J.J.G.Hansen.Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classroom[M].Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,2002.

[107]Lee.Understanding the role of learners with low English language proficiency in peer feedback of second language writing[J].TESOL Quarterly,2016b (2).

[108]Bachman L F.Fundamental considerations in language testing[M].Oxford university press,1990.

[109]Anderson L W,Krathwohl D R,Bloom B S.A Taxonomy for Learning,Teaching,and Assessing:a Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives[J].european legacy,2000.

[110]Bloom B S,Krathwohl D R.Taxonomy of educational objectives:The classification of educational goals.Book 1,Cognitive domain[M].longman,2020.

[111]Zarei A A,Mahmudi M.The effects of content,formal,and linguistic schema building activity types on EFL reading and listening comprehension[J].Teaching English Language, 2012,6(2):79-101.

[112]Xiaoyan, Zhang.Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development[J].Language Teaching Research,2017,21(2):217-240.M.M. Etal.The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revision[J].Instructional Science, 2013(2).

[113]Burris C C,Heubert JP,Levin HM. Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping[J].American Educational Research Journal,2006,43(1):137-154.

中图分类号:

 G63    

开放日期:

 2023-05-31    

无标题文档

   建议浏览器: 谷歌 火狐 360请用极速模式,双核浏览器请用极速模式