期刊文献+

教师反馈与在线作文评价系统WRM2.0对比研究——以非英语专业大学生为例

A Comparative Study of Teacher Feedback and Online Writing Assessment WRM2.0--A Case Study on the Writing of Non-Major EFL Learners
下载PDF
导出
摘要 本项研究探讨了教师反馈和在线作文评价系统WRM2.0所提供的写作反馈对于提高中国英语学习者写作水平的效果。研究中采用定量研究方法——整体性评估,并运用了调查问卷和SPSS13.0两种工具采集和分析研究数据。研究结果表明,两种反馈都能有效促进和提高中国学生写作能力,但两者相较,WRM2.0所提供的反馈对于中国学生写作能力的提高作用更为显著。这个发现能帮助大学英语教师找到针对学生写作的另一种有效的反馈手段,从而帮助解决目前中国特定环境下非英语专业大学生对于写作反馈的旺盛需求和教师反馈不足这对矛盾。 This case study investigates the effects of teacher feedback and the feedback provided by the online writing assessment system WRM2.0on the improvement of writing of Chinese EFL learners.The quantitative method holistic rating was employed,with a questionnaire and SPSS12.0as instruments of data collection and analysis.The findings of the study suggest that both the two kinds of feedback are effective in improving the writing ability of Chinese EFL learners.But compared with teacher feedback,the feedback provided by WRM2.0helps students to make much more significant improvement in their writing.This finding indicates that the feedback provided by WRM2.0can be a good supplement to teacher feedback in helping improve students'writing ability,thus help solve the contradiction between the students'demand of large amount of feedback and the poor supply of feedback their teachers can provide.
作者 陈占岐 Chen Zhanqi(Luoyang Normal University, Luoyang 471022)
机构地区 洛阳师范学院
出处 《课程教育研究(学法教法研究)》 2017年第18期6-8,共3页
关键词 教师反馈 在线作文评价系统 WRITING Roadmap2.0(WRM2.0) 英语写作 teacher feedback online writing assessment Writing Roadmap2.0 (WRM 2.0) EFL writing
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献43

  • 1吴会芹.用现代化手段辅助语言测试[J].外语电化教学,2006(3):49-53. 被引量:5
  • 2Attali, Y. 2004. Exploring the feedback and revision features of criterion [R]. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA., America, April 2004.
  • 3Attali, Y. &J. Burstein. 2006. Automated essay scoring with e-raterar^Rv. 2 [OL]. http://escholarship, bc. edu/cgi/viewcontent, cgi? article = 1049&context-- jtla (accessed 16/03/2010).
  • 4Chen, E. & E. Cheng. 2008. Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes [J]. Language Learning & Technology 12: 94-112.
  • 5Dernyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies [M]. Oxford: OUP.
  • 6Elliot, S. & C. Mikulas. 2004. The impact of MY Access ! use on student writing performance.. A technology overview and four studies [R]. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA., America, April 2004.
  • 7Ericsson, P. & R. Haswell (eds.). 2006. Machine Scoring of Student Essays : Truths and Consequences [C]. Logan, UT. : Utah State University Press.
  • 8Grimes, D. 2008. Assessing automated assessment.. Essay evaluation software in the classroom [OL]. ftp://ftp, ics. uci. edu/pub/grimesd/AutoAssessment, pdf (accessed 20/06/2010).
  • 9Hoon, T. 2006. Online automated essay assessment: Potentials for writing development [OL]. http://ausweb, scu. edu. au/aw06/papers/refereed/tan3/paper, html (accessed 09/08/2010).
  • 10Landauer, T., D. Laham & P. Foltz. 2003. Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor [A]. In M. Shermis & J. Burstein (eds.). Automated Essay Scoring, A Cross-disciplinary Perspective [C]. Mahwah, N. J, : Lawrence Erlbaum 87-112.

共引文献161

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部