본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함
결과 내 검색 동의어 포함

-

초록보기

This study aims to explore whether the effects of focused written corrective feedback (WCF) are affected by the number and grammatical complexity of its target structures. To fulfill the purpose, English articles and hypothetical conditional were chosen as less and more complex target structure. Sixty seven Korean college students were assigned to one of three experimental groups or a control group, and conducted four writing tasks. The experimental groups were distinguished by target structure of WCF they received: articles only, hypothetical conditional only, or both structures. The control group received no WCF. The students’ first, third and fourth writing served as pretest, immediate posttest and delayed posttest, respectively. The results revealed that focused WCF had short-term beneficial effects on improving accuracy of using either structure whether it targeted one or both. However, such short-term effects were not sustained over time for the more complex structure when WCF targeted both structures. The findings are discussed from SLA perspectives and pedagogical implications are suggested. (162 words)

권호기사

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 목차
Impact of phonics instruction application on phonemic awareness within vocabulary and reading abilities of elementary school english teaching Xin Hu, Kiyong Park p. 1-20

(The) efficacy of focused written corrective feedback : does it vary with number and complexity of target structures? Sung-Soo Jang p. 21-39

Exploring two East Asian ESL students’ linguistic and cultural needs : from the emic perspective Eun Hee Kim p. 41-60

Perceptions and preparedness of pre-service teachers for the fourth industrial revolution Jeung Deok Kim p. 61-83

Assessing English major students’ perceptions of digital literacy training Miran Kim, Junkyu Lee p. 85-105

(A) study of ethnically-varied English teachers’ perception on prosocial behavior Eun-Sook Lee p. 107-127

국내 지방대 의예과 영어프로그램 평가 및 개선방안 = Medical English program evaluation and improvement at a local university in Korea 고명희, 이경아 p. 129-159

과업 중 압박과 비압박 계획이 영어 말하기와 쓰기 수행에 미치는 영향 = The effects of on-line pressured and unpressured planning on speaking and writing task performance 주미진 p. 161-177

참고문헌 (51건) : 자료제공( 네이버학술정보 )

참고문헌 목록에 대한 테이블로 번호, 참고문헌, 국회도서관 소장유무로 구성되어 있습니다.
번호 참고문헌 국회도서관 소장유무
1 Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. 미소장
2 Bitchener J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211. 미소장
3 Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. 미소장
4 Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. 미소장
5 Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. 미소장
6 Bonilla Lopez, M., van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850. 미소장
7 Brown, D. (2012). The written corrective feedback debate: Next steps for classroom teachers and practitioners. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 861-867. 미소장
8 DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125-151). Cambridge University Press. 미소장
9 Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34. 미소장
10 Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. 미소장
11 Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. 미소장
12 Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49-56. 미소장
13 Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. 미소장
14 Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where we are, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. 미소장
15 Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press. 미소장
16 Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. 미소장
17 Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. 미소장
18 Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], The University of Auckland. 미소장
19 Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. 미소장
20 Gao, J., & Ma, S. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning and Technology, 23(2), 65-83. 미소장
21 Hosseini, S. B. (2015). Written corrective feedback and the correct use of definite/indefinite articles. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(4), 98-112. 미소장
22 Jang, S. (2013). Written corrective feedback and writing anxiety in L2 acquisition. Foreign Languages Education, 20(3), 87-112. 미소장
23 Jang, S. (2014). Learners’ proficiency level and the efficacy of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 27-49. 미소장
24 Jiang, L., & Xiao, H. (2014). The efficacy of written corrective feedback and language analytic ability on Chinese learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. English Language Teaching, 7(10), 22-34. 미소장
25 Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. 미소장
26 Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313. 미소장
27 Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 2-7. 미소장
28 Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 1-15. 미소장
29 Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 30, 66-81. 미소장
30 Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 1-14. 미소장
31 Mujtaba, S., Reynolds, B., Parkash, R., & Singh, M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50, 1-13. 미소장
32 Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535-562. 미소장
33 Pearson, W. (2022). The mediating effects of student beliefs on engagement with written feedback in preparation for high-stakes English writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 52, 1-11. 미소장
34 Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527. 미소장
35 Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Rasekh, A. E. (2015). The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7(16), 113-146. 미소장
36 Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. University of Hawai’i Press. 미소장
37 Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. 미소장
38 Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. 미소장
39 Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234. 미소장
40 Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. 미소장
41 Shintani, N., Aubrey, S., & Donnellan, M. (2016). The effects of pre-task and post-task metalinguistic explanations on accuracy in second language writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 945-954. 미소장
42 Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. 미소장
43 Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. 미소장
44 Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of target feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263-308. 미소장
45 Stefanou., C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282. 미소장
46 Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. 미소장
47 Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. 미소장
48 Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. 미소장
49 Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. 미소장
50 van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. 미소장
51 Zhang, X. (2017). Reading-writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240. 미소장

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차