《外语课堂语言错误的纠正_胡越竹_EnglishAbstract_5_7.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外语课堂语言错误的纠正_胡越竹_EnglishAbstract_5_7.docx（3页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、71994-2016 China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. All rights reserved, http:/ Abstract Errors, as a significant indicator of how the language learners have grasped the target language, have attracted more and more attention of teachers and researchers in the field of second language acq
2、uisition. It is suggested that the learners are able to move forward in the target language continuum by making hypotheses, testing them and confirming or reformulating them. To explore how linguistic errors in classroom interaction were treated in EFL classrooms and find out the desirable way of er
3、ror correction for college students, the author conducted a study that included as subjects eighty teachers from twelve universities and three hundred and fifty-two freshmen from five higher learning institutes. Data were collected by the administration of questionnaires and interviews. The results
4、were as follows: Major findings of this study can be summarized as follows: 1. Both EM teacher group and NEM teacher group did not over-react to students errors. The type of errors they treated most frequently was expression errors. Next were grammatical errors and pronunciation errors. The techniqu
5、es employed most by teachers were recast and elicitation. Teachers were not critical upon the occurrence of students errors on the whole. Some teachers made use of non-verbal means in providing negative feedback. Most of the teachers corrected student errors after the students finished with their ex
6、pressions. Teachers corrective behavior differed when students were engaged in teacher-centered activities and pair/group work. 2. The difference between EM teacher group and NEM teacher group mainly consisted in: 1) EM teachers corrected their students less often than NEM teachers. 2) EM teachers t
7、reated expression errors more than NEM teachers, while NEM teachers treated grammatical and pronunciation errors more. 3) EM teachers used clarification request more than NEM teachers, while NEM teachers used explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback more. 3. A majority of teachers did take in
8、dividual differences into account in providing iii 71994-2016 China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. All rights reserved, http:/ corrective feedback. They corrected LP students, female students, students with low self-esteem, low risk-takers and students with high level of language anxi
9、ety less often. They employed different means of correction to extroverts and introverts, HP students and LP students, students with high self-esteem and students with low self-esteem, high risk-takers and low risk-takers and students with high level of language anxiety and students with low level o
10、f language anxiety. 4. The students held a positive attitude towards errors and error correction. However, they did not want error to be corrected too frequently. Two types of errors put at the top of their priority list, which were worth great attention in error treatment, were pronunciation errors
11、 and expression errors. The students preferred corrective techniques leading to self-repair. English majors had a stronger desire to be offered the opportunities to correct errors by themselves. Students wanted their teachers to correct their errors upon their completion of expression. They approved
12、 of their teachers different way of treating errors in whole-class activities and pair/ group work. On the whole, teachers5 corrective behavior could meet the students needs. 5. The preferred corrective techniques of HP students, students with high self-esteem, high risk-takers and students with hig
13、h L2 confidence were those leading to self-repair. For LP students, low risk-takers, students with high language anxiety level and students with low L2 confidence， their favorite corrective technique was recast. 6. Students attitude toward peer correction was positive. They did not treat peers error
14、s frequently. They corrected their peers pronunciation errors most often and recast erroneous expressions most often in peer correction. 7. HP students, extroverts, students with high self-esteem, high risk-takers, students with low language anxiety level and students with high L2 confidence tended
15、to provide their peers with more opportunities for self-repair. LP students and students with low self-esteem often used recast. Low risk-takers and students with low L2 confidence liked to correct peers errors explicitly. 71994-2016 China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. All rights res
16、erved, http:/ 8. In pair/ group work HP students, extroverts and high risk-takers preferred corrective techniques leading to self-repair more than LP students, introverts and low risk-takers. Students with high language anxiety level were fond of recast, while students with low language anxiety leve
17、l liked explicit correction best. Students with low L2 confidence preferred explicit correction, while students with high L2 confidence were in favor of recast. Findings of the present study provide us with information of error treatment in EFL classrooms. Suggestions have been made on how to facilitate learning by adjusting teachers corrective behavior to students needs and how to help them in the learning process to enable them to benefit more from teacher-student interactions and student-student interactions.