Grammatical Errors in Pre-service English Teachers’ Argumentative Essays and their Views Regarding Error Correction

IF 0.1 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Foro Educacional Pub Date : 2023-07-12 DOI:10.29344/07180772.40.3314
Miguel Chávez Chávez, Karinnette Valenzuela Ponce
{"title":"Grammatical Errors in Pre-service English Teachers’ Argumentative Essays and their Views Regarding Error Correction","authors":"Miguel Chávez Chávez, Karinnette Valenzuela Ponce","doi":"10.29344/07180772.40.3314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study seeks to identify grammatical errors in argumentative essays written by prospective teachers of English as a foreign language in the fifth semester of college, determine whether students are aware of their mistakes, and discover their experiences with grammar instruction and error correction. We conducted an Error Analysis and contrasted results with a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) to assess students’ awareness of grammatical errors detected in their essays. Using mixed methods research, we compared results with a survey to discover the students’ views on English grammar learning and error correction. The most common errors were verb phrases, subject usage, clause patterns, prepositions, and verb patterns. Of these errors, prepositions, verbs, and clause patterns were the most problematic in the GJT. When characterizing grammatical errors and contrasting them with their judgments and opinions, we found that students did not overcome their most frequent mistakes, as they failed to identify and correct the same types of errors in the GJT applied one year later. Students are aware of their grammatical weaknesses since the contents considered the most challenging to learn coincide with those in which they perform worst on the test. Finally, students suggest alternative feedback strategies, including peer monitoring, to make their error correction process reflective.","PeriodicalId":40095,"journal":{"name":"Foro Educacional","volume":"28 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foro Educacional","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29344/07180772.40.3314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study seeks to identify grammatical errors in argumentative essays written by prospective teachers of English as a foreign language in the fifth semester of college, determine whether students are aware of their mistakes, and discover their experiences with grammar instruction and error correction. We conducted an Error Analysis and contrasted results with a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) to assess students’ awareness of grammatical errors detected in their essays. Using mixed methods research, we compared results with a survey to discover the students’ views on English grammar learning and error correction. The most common errors were verb phrases, subject usage, clause patterns, prepositions, and verb patterns. Of these errors, prepositions, verbs, and clause patterns were the most problematic in the GJT. When characterizing grammatical errors and contrasting them with their judgments and opinions, we found that students did not overcome their most frequent mistakes, as they failed to identify and correct the same types of errors in the GJT applied one year later. Students are aware of their grammatical weaknesses since the contents considered the most challenging to learn coincide with those in which they perform worst on the test. Finally, students suggest alternative feedback strategies, including peer monitoring, to make their error correction process reflective.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
职前英语教师议论文中的语法错误及其纠错观点
本研究旨在找出大学第五学期准英语教师所写的议论文中的语法错误,确定学生是否意识到自己的错误,并发现他们在语法指导和错误纠正方面的经验。我们进行了错误分析,并将结果与语法判断测试(GJT)进行对比,以评估学生对论文中发现的语法错误的意识。采用混合研究方法,将结果与调查结果进行比较,了解学生对英语语法学习和纠错的看法。最常见的错误是动词短语、主语用法、从句模式、介词和动词模式。在这些错误中,介词、动词和从句模式在GJT中是最成问题的。在描述语法错误并将其与他们的判断和观点进行对比时,我们发现学生们并没有克服他们最常见的错误,因为他们在一年后申请的GJT中未能识别和纠正相同类型的错误。学生们意识到自己的语法缺陷,因为他们认为最难学的内容恰恰是他们在考试中表现最差的内容。最后,学生们提出了其他反馈策略,包括同伴监督,以使他们的错误纠正过程反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Foro Educacional
Foro Educacional EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
Debatir las Ciencias de la Educación a través del hecho educativo y el ethos científico Entre narrativas y representaciones sociales, estudiantes de Colombia reflexionan sobre la reprobación escolar Implementación de estrategias pedagógicas flexibles que permitan mejorar la convivencia y la cultura de inclusión en un aula multicultural El liderazgo educativo en un Liceo Bicentenario de la región del Maule, Chile: un estudio de caso Diagnóstico sobre salud mental en una práctica profesional de Formación Docente en una universidad estatal chilena
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1