Title: Spätná väzba ako faktor ovplyvňujúci lingvistickú a komunikatívnu úroveň produktívnej zručnosti písania
Variant title:
- Feedback as a factor influencing linguistic and communicative level in the productive skill of writing
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2011, vol. 16, iss. 2, pp. [89]-108
Extent
[89]-108
-
ISSN1803-7437 (print)2336-4521 (online)
Persistent identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2011-2-5
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/115884
Type: Article
Language
License: Not specified license
Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.
Abstract(s)
Zámerom článku je predstaviť taxonómiu, prostredníctvom ktorej sme identifikovali najčastejšie globálne a lokálne chyby v slohových prácach participantov. Zároveň chceme vysvetliť jednotlivé kroky tohto systematického postupu, výsledkom ktorého bolo získanie dát, na základe ktorých sme porovnali počiatočnú a aktuálnu úroveň zručnosti písania u participantov oboch skupín. A následne štatistickým spracovaním týchto dát verifikovať jednotlivé hypotézy o vplyvu poskytovania spätnej väzby na rozvíjanie komunikatívnej a lingvistickej úrovne produktívnej zručnosti písania v anglickom jazyku.
The purpose of this article is to introduce a taxonomy on whose basis we identify the most common global and local errors made in participants' essays. At the same time we explain individual steps taken in this systematic procedure. Based on this procedure we gained data that we used to compare the initial and current level of the writing skills of participants in both groups. Subsequently we verified statistically individual hypotheses that deal with the impact of feedback on the development of communicative and linguistic competence in writing in English.
Note
Tento článok vznikol v rámci projektu Škola: výzkum vnitřních procesů a vnějších podmínek jejího fungování (GD406/09/H040) financovaného Grantovou agenturou České republiky.
References
[1] ANSON, C. The Longman Pocket Writer's Companion. Harlow: Logman, 2011. ISBN 0-205-74179-7.
[2] BLACK, P. J., WILLIAM, D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 1998, roč. 5, č. 1, s. 7–73. ISSN 0969-594X.
[3] BURT, M. K., KIPARSKY, C. The gooficon: a repair manual for English. Rowley (M.A.): Newbury House, 1972. ISBN 0912066075.
[4] COOK, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold, 1991. ISBN 0-340-5262-62.
[5] FATHMAN, A., WHALLEY, E. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In KROLL, B. (ed.). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, s. 178–190. ISBN 0-521-38778-7.
[6] GYNAN, S. N. Comprehension, irritation and error hierarchies. Hispania, 1985, roč. 68, č. 3, s. 160–165. ISSN 0018-2133. | DOI 10.2307/341633
[7] HIGGS, T. V., CLIFFORD, R. The push toward communication. In HIGGS, T. V. (ed.). Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher (ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series). Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company, 1982, s. 57–79. ISBN 0-8442-9381-4.
[8] JOHANSSON, S. Studies of error gravity: Native reactions to errors produced by Swedish learners of English. Gothenburg Studies in English, 1978, roč. 44, č. 4, s. 6–13. ISSN 0072-503X.
[9] KEPNER, C. An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. Modern Language Journal, 1991, roč. 75, č. 3, s. 305–313. ISSN 0026-7902. | DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x
[10] KRASHEN, S. Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. ISBN 0-08-031103-2.
[11] LALANDE, J. Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. Modern Language Journal, 1982, roč. 66, č. 2, s. 140–149. ISSN 1540-4781. | DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
[12] LEKI, I. The Preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 1991, roč. 24, č. 3, s. 203–218. ISSN 1944-9720. | DOI 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
[13] OLSSON, M. Intelligibility: A Study of Errors and Their Importance. Gothenburg: Department of Educational Research, Gothenburg School of Education, 1972.
[14] PRŮCHA, J. Moderní pedagogika. Praha: Portál, 1997. ISBN 80-7178-170-3.
[15] REID, J. Responding to ESL students' texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 1994, roč. 28, č. 3, s. 273–292. ISSN 0039-8322. | DOI 10.2307/3587434
[16] SHEPPARD, K. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 1992, roč. 23, č. 3, s. 103–110. ISSN 0033-6882. | DOI 10.1177/003368829202300107
[17] SLAVÍK, J. Hodnocení v současné škole: východiska a nové metody pro praxi. Praha: Portál, 1999. ISBN 80-71278-262-9.
[18] TRUSCOTT, J. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 1996, roč. 46, č. 3, s. 327–369. ISSN 1467-9922. | DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
[19] VALDMAN, A. Learner Systems and Error Analysis. In GILBERT, A. J. (ed.). Perspective: A New Freedom. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company, 1975, s. 219–258. ISSN 0826-435X.
[2] BLACK, P. J., WILLIAM, D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 1998, roč. 5, č. 1, s. 7–73. ISSN 0969-594X.
[3] BURT, M. K., KIPARSKY, C. The gooficon: a repair manual for English. Rowley (M.A.): Newbury House, 1972. ISBN 0912066075.
[4] COOK, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold, 1991. ISBN 0-340-5262-62.
[5] FATHMAN, A., WHALLEY, E. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In KROLL, B. (ed.). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990, s. 178–190. ISBN 0-521-38778-7.
[6] GYNAN, S. N. Comprehension, irritation and error hierarchies. Hispania, 1985, roč. 68, č. 3, s. 160–165. ISSN 0018-2133. | DOI 10.2307/341633
[7] HIGGS, T. V., CLIFFORD, R. The push toward communication. In HIGGS, T. V. (ed.). Curriculum, Competence, and the Foreign Language Teacher (ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series). Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company, 1982, s. 57–79. ISBN 0-8442-9381-4.
[8] JOHANSSON, S. Studies of error gravity: Native reactions to errors produced by Swedish learners of English. Gothenburg Studies in English, 1978, roč. 44, č. 4, s. 6–13. ISSN 0072-503X.
[9] KEPNER, C. An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. Modern Language Journal, 1991, roč. 75, č. 3, s. 305–313. ISSN 0026-7902. | DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x
[10] KRASHEN, S. Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. ISBN 0-08-031103-2.
[11] LALANDE, J. Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. Modern Language Journal, 1982, roč. 66, č. 2, s. 140–149. ISSN 1540-4781. | DOI 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
[12] LEKI, I. The Preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 1991, roč. 24, č. 3, s. 203–218. ISSN 1944-9720. | DOI 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
[13] OLSSON, M. Intelligibility: A Study of Errors and Their Importance. Gothenburg: Department of Educational Research, Gothenburg School of Education, 1972.
[14] PRŮCHA, J. Moderní pedagogika. Praha: Portál, 1997. ISBN 80-7178-170-3.
[15] REID, J. Responding to ESL students' texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 1994, roč. 28, č. 3, s. 273–292. ISSN 0039-8322. | DOI 10.2307/3587434
[16] SHEPPARD, K. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 1992, roč. 23, č. 3, s. 103–110. ISSN 0033-6882. | DOI 10.1177/003368829202300107
[17] SLAVÍK, J. Hodnocení v současné škole: východiska a nové metody pro praxi. Praha: Portál, 1999. ISBN 80-71278-262-9.
[18] TRUSCOTT, J. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 1996, roč. 46, č. 3, s. 327–369. ISSN 1467-9922. | DOI 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
[19] VALDMAN, A. Learner Systems and Error Analysis. In GILBERT, A. J. (ed.). Perspective: A New Freedom. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company, 1975, s. 219–258. ISSN 0826-435X.