1 - asfasdfasdf PDF

Preview

Summary

asfasdfasdf...

Description

1) Will error correction with the help of concordances reduce errors in free production? Which one is more useful in helping learners reduce errors in free production, consulting corpora or consulting the online dictionary to correct errors? 2) Is corpora-assisted error correction more useful in making the right corrections compared with dictionary-assisted error correction? 3) What are EFL learners’ attitudes toward the corpora-assisted error correction?

1. Which error types did students correct either with or without a corpus during classroom DDL for L2 writing? If the corpus was used, were the corrections appropriate? 2. Did students perceive corpora as useful for correcting errors in their L2 writing, and did they perceive any particular difficulty in doing so? 3. Did teacher feedback on L2 writing influence the type and appropriacy of errors corrected by students during the DDL-assisted revision phase?

(1) To what extent do the students use DDL material when they correct the four types of errors (article, preposition, verb and word choice)? (2) Compared to traditional consulting resources, does DDL material show higher correction rate on four types of errors? (3) If so, does the combination of DDL and traditional resources can further help students reduce four types of errors and learn appropriate usage? (4) What is the relationship between feedback, DDL and error correction? (5) What is the student’s perception of DDL application in written error correction? (6) What is the teacher’s perception of DDL application in written error correction?

‘Three Is’ (Illustration-Interaction-Induction)” (McCarthy, 1998:67). Illustration means learners look at real chunks of language, at real data as collected in the different corpora of spoken language available. This stage should produce appropriate and motivating responses in learners. A crucial stage then follows, Interaction. Learners and teachers analyse together the material, talk about what they notice, try to form views. It is the moment when discourse awareness activities are brought to the fore, e.g. activities which focus on particular discourse patterns in the language under examination. Through observation learners are asked to comprehend and formulate the rules governing linguistic phenomena. Finally, during the Induction stage, conclusions are drawn about the features of the language analysed.

III (Illustration, Interaction, Induction) III, which stands for Illustration, Interaction and Induction, is another language awareness-based model of language teaching. McCarthy and Carter (1995) - who are the pioneers of this model - argue the need for a step away from the three Ps to what they term the three Is. They believe that accessing real data and teaching aspects of spoken grammar should be incorporated into the lessons in order to make learners aware of the nature of spoken language and written distinctions in terms of grammatical choices. In the III model, Illustration means “wherever possible examining real data which is presented in terms of choices of forms relative to context and use” (McCarthy & Carter, 1995, p.217). In this regard, learners look at real chunks of language, at real data as collected in the different corpora of spoken language available. Interaction means that learners and teachers analyze the material together and talk about what language item has been noticed. Through observation learners are asked to comprehend and formulate the rules governing linguistic phenomena. In this stage, discourse awareness activities are brought to the fore, e.g. activities which focus on particular discourse patterns in the language under examination (McCarthy & Carter, 1995). As the last stage, Induction takes the consciousness-raising a stage further by encouraging learners to draw conclusions about the features of the language analyzed (McCarthy & Carter, 1995). The induction stage is not followed by controlled practice compared to the PPP model. McCarthy and Carter (1995) also point out that - with this model - learners will notice that some areas of grammar are probabilistically appropriate rather than absolutely correct, and that there are cases when their choice will be between an informal, interpersonally-orientated form, and a more formal alternative. This means that it is perhaps more proper to talk of tendencies, variable rules and choices than of fixed rules when spoken language is the object of analysis.

Dear Dr Lin, Sorry for the late response Summer vacation is nearly over, I have taken sufficient time to think, and have listened to your suggestion and read through all of the abstracts, It was a great source of information and gave me some more understanding into the topics of DDL in regards to language learning. I have stumbled upon several initial ideas about what I'm interested in and would like to do, however I would still need your suggestions and feedback if my ideas are actually feasible. I am particularly interested in topics such as Error Correction (omission, deletion, word choice, word form, morphosyntax, collocation etc) , Phrasal Verbs,and Writing Development (fluency, accuracy, vocabulary complexity and grammatical complexity) There are several variables that i'm still undecided on For example which corpuses i will use BNCweb http://bncweb.lancs.ac.uk/ , CQPweb http://114.251.154.212/cqp/ I have also taken interest in Web as corpus such as WebCorp Linguist Search Engine, Google as concordancer however, if you have any alternatives or recommendations please let me know. Currently my research ideas are,

regards to the structure of my thesis, i want to know if it is possible to conduct a experimental design, combined with a quantitative and qualitative component for measuring students perceptions...