中国高水平英语学习者策略在建构性反馈中的应用研究

IF 1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Beibei Song
{"title":"中国高水平英语学习者策略在建构性反馈中的应用研究","authors":"Beibei Song","doi":"10.1515/CJAL-2023-0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics, constructive feedback (CF), defined as “the identification of a problematic action and advice on how to change or correct the problem” (Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 125), has received little attention. To fill this gap, similarities and differences between native Chinese speakers, native American speakers, and high-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ CF are explored in this study. In particular, how these learners’ strategy applications in CF differ from those of American and Chinese speakers is examined. Data were collected through discourse completion tests (DCTs) owing to their advantages in controlling social variables and their efficiency in eliciting rich data within a limited time (Leech, 2014). In total, 42 participants were randomly selected from three groups: 14 native Chinese speakers, 14 native American speakers, and 14 high-proficiency Chinese EFL learners. The results revealed significant differences in strategy employment in CF among the three groups, with the highest disparity elicited in hedge strategies. Here, EFL learners resembled American speakers in six of the eight hedge strategies. However, they had the same percentage in terms of compliments as the Chinese speakers. With regard to supportive moves, there were no significant differences among the three groups. As a pioneering investigation, the aim of this study is to call for further research on CF.","PeriodicalId":43185,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"46 1","pages":"71 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Study of High-Proficiency Chinese EFL Learners’ Strategy Applications in Constructive Feedback\",\"authors\":\"Beibei Song\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/CJAL-2023-0105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics, constructive feedback (CF), defined as “the identification of a problematic action and advice on how to change or correct the problem” (Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 125), has received little attention. To fill this gap, similarities and differences between native Chinese speakers, native American speakers, and high-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ CF are explored in this study. In particular, how these learners’ strategy applications in CF differ from those of American and Chinese speakers is examined. Data were collected through discourse completion tests (DCTs) owing to their advantages in controlling social variables and their efficiency in eliciting rich data within a limited time (Leech, 2014). In total, 42 participants were randomly selected from three groups: 14 native Chinese speakers, 14 native American speakers, and 14 high-proficiency Chinese EFL learners. The results revealed significant differences in strategy employment in CF among the three groups, with the highest disparity elicited in hedge strategies. Here, EFL learners resembled American speakers in six of the eight hedge strategies. However, they had the same percentage in terms of compliments as the Chinese speakers. With regard to supportive moves, there were no significant differences among the three groups. As a pioneering investigation, the aim of this study is to call for further research on CF.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"71 - 87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2023-0105\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2023-0105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在跨文化和语际语用学中,建设性反馈(CF)被定义为“识别有问题的行为,并就如何改变或纠正问题提出建议”(Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 125),很少受到关注。为了填补这一空白,本研究探讨了中国母语人士、美国母语人士和中国高水平英语学习者的CF的异同。特别研究了这些学习者在语言交际中的策略运用与美国和中国学习者的差异。由于话语完成测试(dct)在控制社会变量方面的优势以及在有限时间内获得丰富数据的效率,因此通过话语完成测试(dct)收集数据(Leech, 2014)。总共42名参与者被随机从三组中选择:14名母语为汉语的人,14名母语为美国人,14名高水平的中国英语学习者。结果显示,三组学生在财务管理策略使用上存在显著差异,其中对冲策略差异最大。在这里,英语学习者在八种对冲策略中的六种与美国人相似。然而,在赞美方面,他们和说中文的人的比例是一样的。在支持措施方面,三组之间没有显著差异。作为一项开创性的研究,本研究的目的是呼吁对CF的进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Study of High-Proficiency Chinese EFL Learners’ Strategy Applications in Constructive Feedback
Abstract In cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics, constructive feedback (CF), defined as “the identification of a problematic action and advice on how to change or correct the problem” (Nguyen & Basturkmen, 2010, p. 125), has received little attention. To fill this gap, similarities and differences between native Chinese speakers, native American speakers, and high-proficiency Chinese EFL learners’ CF are explored in this study. In particular, how these learners’ strategy applications in CF differ from those of American and Chinese speakers is examined. Data were collected through discourse completion tests (DCTs) owing to their advantages in controlling social variables and their efficiency in eliciting rich data within a limited time (Leech, 2014). In total, 42 participants were randomly selected from three groups: 14 native Chinese speakers, 14 native American speakers, and 14 high-proficiency Chinese EFL learners. The results revealed significant differences in strategy employment in CF among the three groups, with the highest disparity elicited in hedge strategies. Here, EFL learners resembled American speakers in six of the eight hedge strategies. However, they had the same percentage in terms of compliments as the Chinese speakers. With regard to supportive moves, there were no significant differences among the three groups. As a pioneering investigation, the aim of this study is to call for further research on CF.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
377
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL) (formerly known as Teaching English in China – CELEA Journal) was created in 1978 as a newsletter by the British Council, Beijing. It is the affiliated journal of the China English Language Education Association (founded in 1981 and now the Chinese affiliate of AILA [International Association of Applied Linguistics]). The Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics is the only English language teaching (ELT) journal in China that is published in English, serving as a window to Chinese reform on ELT for professionals in China and around the world. The journal is internationally focused, fully refereed, and its articles address a wide variety of topics in Chinese applied linguistics which include – but also reach beyond – the topics of language education and second language acquisition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信