少真的是多吗?全面书面纠正反馈的案例

IF 0.5 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics Pub Date : 2021-11-26 DOI:10.37213/cjal.2021.31242
Mohammad Falhasiri
{"title":"少真的是多吗?全面书面纠正反馈的案例","authors":"Mohammad Falhasiri","doi":"10.37213/cjal.2021.31242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nAn underexplored question, and one with potentially far-reaching implications for the practice of written corrective feedback (WCF), is whether to mark a wide range of errors (comprehensive feedback) or to focus on a few error types (focused feedback) in learners’ L2 writing. Despite limited evidence, it is argued that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, and intimidating; can cognitively and affectively overwhelm L2 learners and may dilute attention to WCF. This paper aims to first respond to and call into question these and other arguments against comprehensive WCF, and then it puts forward some arguments against focused WCF. In doing so, it draws on dominant SLA theories and empirical research findings to lend support to the rebuttals and arguments. Some concrete suggestions are made to help teachers fully exploit the potentials of a comprehensive feedback approach.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":43961,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Falhasiri\",\"doi\":\"10.37213/cjal.2021.31242\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nAn underexplored question, and one with potentially far-reaching implications for the practice of written corrective feedback (WCF), is whether to mark a wide range of errors (comprehensive feedback) or to focus on a few error types (focused feedback) in learners’ L2 writing. Despite limited evidence, it is argued that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, and intimidating; can cognitively and affectively overwhelm L2 learners and may dilute attention to WCF. This paper aims to first respond to and call into question these and other arguments against comprehensive WCF, and then it puts forward some arguments against focused WCF. In doing so, it draws on dominant SLA theories and empirical research findings to lend support to the rebuttals and arguments. Some concrete suggestions are made to help teachers fully exploit the potentials of a comprehensive feedback approach.\\n\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31242\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31242","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在学习者的第二语言写作中,是标记大范围的错误(综合反馈)还是关注少数类型的错误(集中反馈),这是一个未被充分探讨的问题,也是一个对书面纠正反馈(WCF)实践具有潜在深远影响的问题。尽管证据有限,但有人认为全面的WCF是不系统的、不一致的、令人困惑的和令人生畏的;会在认知上和情感上压倒二语学习者,并可能稀释对WCF的注意。本文旨在首先回应和质疑这些以及其他反对综合WCF的观点,然后提出一些反对集中WCF的观点。在此过程中,本文借鉴了主流的二语习得理论和实证研究结果,为反驳和论证提供了支持。提出了一些具体的建议,以帮助教师充分发挥综合反馈方法的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Is Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback
An underexplored question, and one with potentially far-reaching implications for the practice of written corrective feedback (WCF), is whether to mark a wide range of errors (comprehensive feedback) or to focus on a few error types (focused feedback) in learners’ L2 writing. Despite limited evidence, it is argued that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, and intimidating; can cognitively and affectively overwhelm L2 learners and may dilute attention to WCF. This paper aims to first respond to and call into question these and other arguments against comprehensive WCF, and then it puts forward some arguments against focused WCF. In doing so, it draws on dominant SLA theories and empirical research findings to lend support to the rebuttals and arguments. Some concrete suggestions are made to help teachers fully exploit the potentials of a comprehensive feedback approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊最新文献
Évaluer la compréhension en lecture d’un récit et d’un texte informatif auprès d’élèves de 8 ans Review of Mackey, A. (2020). Interaction, feedback and task research in second language learning: Methods and design. Cambridge University Press. Review of Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020). Vocabulary in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Teachers’ Perceptions Toward Video as a Tool for Feedback on Students’ Oral Performance English-Language Proficiency Requirements for Migration to Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and the Implications for Language Testing Research
×
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