期刊文献+

Chinese University EFL Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs About EFL Writing: Differences, Influences, and Pedagogical Implications 被引量:1

大学英语教师和学生对英语作文质量的理解——信念差异、影响及启示(英文)
原文传递
导出
摘要 This study investigates Chinese university EFL teachers' and students' beliefs about what determines the text quality of EFL writing via a mixed-method analysis of data collected by questionnaire, interview, and diagnostic and self-diagnostic feedback on students' essays. The results indicate that: First, both the teachers and students attached much importance to language, but the teachers put significantly more emphasis on organization and content whereas the students put significantly more emphasis on vocabulary;Second, the beliefs of students were heavily influenced by their conceptions of the purposes of EFL writing tasks and the assessment criteria adopted to mark their writing;Third, the disparity between teachers' and students' beliefs caused them to emphasize different aspects of an essay when giving feedback;Finally, students' beliefs had a negative impact on the development of effective writing strategies. Pedagogical implications are suggested. 本研究调查中国大学英语教师和学生如何理解决定英语作文质量的主要因素,旨在识别教师和学生在相关写作信念上的差异,揭示差异的原因及影响,并提出弥补差异的措施。研究通过问卷、访谈、写作诊断表以及写作自诊表等多种方式收集数据,并以内容分析法对数据进行了定性与定M相结合的混合式分析。结果显示:第一,教师和学生都非常重视语言,但教师对结构与内容的重视显著大于学生,而学生对词汇的重视显著大于教师;第二,学生对于英语作文质量决定因素的理解严重依赖于他们对于英语写作任务本质以及评分标准的认知;第三,教师和学生的信念差异导致他们在作文反馈屮强调不同的方面;第四,学生的写作信念在某种程度上不利于他们发展有效的英语写作策略。因此,英语写作教学中应注重利用显性教学、测试反拨效应等手段消弭老师与学生间的信念差异。
作者 Yan Ding Ting Zhao 丁研;赵婷(北京交通大学语言与传播学院;西南财经大学经贸外语学院)
出处 《Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics》 2019年第2期163-181,263,共20页 中国应用语言学(英文)
基金 funded by the Social Science Foundation of Beijing [Grant No.16YJC018]
关键词 EFL writing text quality determining factors BELIEFS pedagogical implications 英语写作 作文质量 决定因素 信念 教学启示
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献36

  • 1杨惠中,桂诗春.语言测试的社会学思考[J].现代外语,2007,30(4):368-374. 被引量:141
  • 2Barkaoui, K. 2011. "Think-aloud protocols in research on essay rating: An empirical study of their veridicality and reactivity. " Language Testing, 28( 1 ): 51-75.
  • 3Congdon, P, J. & J. McQueen, 2003. "The stability of rater severity in large-scale assessment programs. " Journal of Educational Measurement, 37 ( 2 ) : 163 - 178.
  • 4Cumming, A. , R. Kantor, & D. Powers, 2002. "Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. " Modern Language Journal, 86 ( 1 ) : 67 - 96.
  • 5Davies, A. 1997. " Introduction: the limits of ethics in language testing. " Language Testing, 14(3) : 235 -241.
  • 6Davis, A. 2009. " Assessing world Englishes. " Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29 ( 1 ) : 80 - 89.
  • 7DeRemer, M. 1998. " Writing assessment : Raters' elaboration of the rating task. " Assessing Writing, 5 ( 1 ) : 7 - 29.
  • 8Eckes, T. 2008. " Rater types in writing performance assessments : A classification approach to rater variability. " Language Testing, 25(2) : 155 - 185.
  • 9Elder, C, U. Knoch, G. Barkhuizen, & J. Randow, 2005. "Individual feedback to enhance rater training: Does it work?" Language Assessment Quarterly, 2 (3) : 175 - 196.
  • 10Folkert, K. & Ineke, V. 2014. " Raters' decisions, rating procedures and rating scales. " Language Testing, 31, (3) : 279 - 284.

共引文献10

同被引文献4

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

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