支架式反馈对高中英语语法学习的影响 72页

＇．＇Ｖ洁．＇取．名＇Ｖ＇遥：Ｖ．顯击学位论文支餐氏Ａ讀砖系中美＃语化＃巧＃６恣文絶＊＇‘－Ｉ－，．Ｖ．巧－：？．、、一‘－‘＾Ｖ．Ｔ－．Ｉ■：巧导巧饰，谭巧激巧巧专化巧裕：英语语窗文学巧巧方向Ｉ巧巧巧学租论与实巧论义巧巧的巧，２０１６年４月论义巧巧时间＊２０１６年５巧论文编号２０１６１８６，％－％：丧扛；． SichuanInternationalStudiesUniversityEffectsofScaffoldedFeedbackontheLearningofEnglishGrammarinSeniorHighSchoolbyLiaoWenyanAthesissubmittedtotheGraduateSchoolinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterofArtsinEnglishLanguageandLiteratureunderthesupervisionofProfessorTanChunChongqing,P.R.ChinaMay2016 ii 摘要第二语言的学习是一个不断产生语言错误的过程，而在这个过程中对学习者所产生的错误进行纠正是语言教学的一个重要环节。支架式反馈，是指教师针对学生语言表达中出现的错误，层层引导，不断增加语言提示信息，进而促使学生自己生成正确答案的一种反馈形式。不同于常规性反馈，它主张从社会文化视角来研究反馈，该视角认为语言是社会现象，学习是社会参与的结果。国外一些研究者对支架式反馈进行了研究，但在国内，众多对反馈的研究集中在了重铸、元语言提示等一些常规性反馈类型上，对该问题的研究还很缺乏，尤其是相关的实证研究更是稀少。本研究在参阅前人相关研究基础上，试图探讨支架式反馈对高中学生纠正英语语法错误的效果。本研究选取了114名高一学生作为被试，其中，高水平学生30名，低水平学生30名。本次实验分为一个实验组和一个控制组，实验组的被试者接受支架式反馈，控制组被试者接受重铸。114名被试接受了为期两周的实验课程。整个实验都发生在真实的课堂教学之中，教学的主要内容是关于被动语态的学习，最后通过后测来检验被试的学习成果。实验结果如下：1）实验组的后测成绩优于控制组，语法学习效果更好。接受支架式反馈的学生对所学语法知识的掌握更牢靠。2）不同语言水平的学习者接受不同类型的反馈后取得的效果存在差异。其中，两种反馈类型对高水平学习者都有效果；对低水平学习者而言，支架式反馈效果更好。经过对研究的讨论和分析，作者发现教师通过支架式反馈提高了学生语法纠正的效果，同时，让学生对所学语法知识掌握更牢靠。论文最后还根据支架式反馈研究的结果，对英语课堂的反馈提出了一些启示，并在结合本论文缺点的基础上，提出了对后续研究的展望。关键词：支架式反馈；重铸；语法教学；英语被动语态iii AbstractSecondlanguagelearningisaprocessinwhichlearnersconstantlystruggleagainsterrors.Anderrorcorrectionisanimportantpartinsecondlanguageteaching.Scaffoldedfeedbackisamethoddesignatedtotakeadvantageofthebenefitsofretrievalpracticebyprovidingincrementalhintsuntilthecorrectanswercouldbeself-generated.Differingfromconventionalfeedbacktypes,itstudiesfeedbackfromasocioculturalperspective,whichregardslanguageasasocialphenomenon,andlearningistheresultofsocialparticipation.Althoughtherearecertainresearchesonscaffoldedfeedbackabroad,relativeresearchesinChinaareratherfew,especiallytheempiricalones.Moststudiesathomeoncorrectivefeedbackarecenteredonconventionalfeedbacktypes,suchasrecastandmetalingusticfeedback.Onthebasisofreferringtotheresearchesbothathomeandabroad,thisthesisintendstoprobeintotheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonEnglishgrammarlearninginChineseseniorhighschool.Thisstudychooses114SeniorGradeOnestudentsintwoparallelclasses,amongwhich30arehigh-levelstudentsandtheother30arelow-levelstudents.Also,allthestudentsaredividedintotwogroups:theexperimentalgroupandthecontrolgroup.Allparticipantstakepartina2-weektreatmentsession.Theexperimentalresultsareasfollows:1)Subjectsoftheexperimentalgroupoutperformsubjectsofthecontrolgroupinpost-test,whichshowsthatscaffoldedfeedbackcontributestohigherlevelofgrammarlearning.2)Therearesomedifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast.Bothfeedbacktypeshavesomeeffectsonstudentswithdifferentlanguagelevels,butasregardtolow-levelstudents,scaffoldedfeedbackgivesrisetobetterpassivevoicelearning.Aftercarefuldiscussionandanalysistotheresearch,thewriterfindsthatthroughscaffoldedfeedback,teacherscanpromotetheeffectivenessofgrammarlearning.iv Meanwhile,scaffoldedfeedbackisstatisticallyprovedtobemorebeneficialtoparticipantswithlowlanguagelevels.Thethesisalsogivessomesuggestionsaboutscaffoldedfeedbackinclassroomaccordingtotheresultsoftheresearch,andprovidessomesuggestionsforfurtherresearchesbasedonthelimitationsofthestudy.Keywords:scaffoldedfeedback;recast;grammarteaching;Englishpassivevoicev AcknowledgementsThisdissertationisdedicatedtoallthepeoplewhohavesupportedandencouragedmeinvariouswaysinmythreeyears’studyandlifeatSISU.Firstofall,Iwouldliketoexpressmydeepgratitudetomysupervisor,ProfessorTanChun,forhisfather-likesolicitude,constantencouraging,andvaluableadvice.Itisagreathonorandmybestfortunetobethestudentofsuchaprominentleadingscholarlikehim.ProfessorTanisalwaystheretogivemecarefulguidanceandsupportwheneverIencounterobstacles.Iamandwillbeforeverindebtedtohisenlighteninglectures,constructiveinstructionsaswellashisamazingpersonalcharismainbothmyacademiccareerandlife.ButforProfessorTan’skindness,generosityandunfailingsupport,thepresentpapercouldnothavebeenaccomplishedasitnowlooks,andImightnothavebeenwhereIamtoday.Withgreatadmirationandaffection:thankyou,mymentor!IamalsogreatlyindebtedtootherteachersinSISU,suchasProfessorWangLunan,ProfessorXiaoSu,ProfessorJiangMeng,ProfessorDuanLingli,ProfessorLiuYumei,andProfessorMaWulin.Theyhavekindledmydeepinterestsinotherbranchesoflanguage-relatedstudiesandhelpeddeepeningmyunderstandingofthosesubjects.Manythanksgotomydearfriendsandclassmateswhohavealwayssupportedmeconsistentlyforthethree-yearstudyinSISU.Awordofthanksalsogoestomydearparentsandtwosisterswhohavealwayssupportedandencouragedmewiththeirfamilytendernessandlovealthoughtheyhavenoideaofmypaper.Itakefullresponsibilityforallerrorsandmisinterpretationsthatmayappearinthisdissertation.vi ListofFiguresFigure2.1RegulatoryScale-Implicit(Strategic)toExplicit...................................19Figure3.1TestingProceduresoftheExperiment.....................................................29vii ListofTablesTable2.1CategorizationofTypesofCorrectiveFeedback....................................10Table4.1Students’EnglishProficiencyinthePre-test…........................................36Table4.2ComparisonofPre-testScores..................................................................37Table4.3ComparisonofPre-testandPost-testScores............................................37Table4.4ComparisonofPost-testScores................................................................38Table4.5ComparisonofLanguageLevelsinthePre-test.......................................39Table4.6ComparisonofScoresbetweenDifferentLanguageLevels.....................40Table4.7Testsofbetween-SubjectsEffect.............................................................40viii AbbreviationsSLA:SecondLanguageAcquisitionCF:CorrectiveFeedbackZPD:ZoneofProximalDevelopmentESL:EnglishasaSecondLanguageL2:SecondLanguageFLA:FirstLanguageAcquisitionSCT:SocioculturaltheoryLAD:LanguageAcquisitionDeviceEFL:EnglishasaForeignLanguageSD:StandardDeviationGJT:GrammaticalJudgmentTestix TABLEOFCONTENTSChapterOneIntroduction...........................................................................................11.1BackgroundofthePresentStudy......................................................................11.2SignificanceofthePresentStudy.....................................................................31.3ObjectivesofthePresentStudy........................................................................41.4LayoutofthePresentStudy..............................................................................5ChapterTwoLiteratureReview..................................................................................62.1KeyTermsofthePresentStudy........................................................................62.1.1GrammarTeaching..................................................................................62.1.2Scaffolding..............................................................................................72.1.3Feedback.................................................................................................92.1.4ScaffoldedFeedback.............................................................................122.2PreviousStudiesonGrammarTeaching.........................................................132.2.1StudiesAbroad......................................................................................132.2.2StudiesatHome....................................................................................142.2.3Comments.............................................................................................152.3IntroductiontoScaffoldedFeedback..............................................................162.3.1DifferencesfromConventionalFeedback............................................162.3.2FeaturesofScaffoldedFeedback..........................................................172.3.3StepsandProceduresofProvidingScaffoldedFeedback.....................182.3.4Comments.............................................................................................202.4ScaffoldedFeedbackandGrammarTeaching................................................212.4.1.PreviousStudiesAbroad......................................................................212.4.2PreviousStudiesatHome.....................................................................232.4.3Comments.............................................................................................232.5Summary.........................................................................................................24ChapterThreeMethodology.....................................................................................253.1ResearchQuestionsandHypotheses..............................................................25x 3.2Participants......................................................................................................263.3TargetStructure...............................................................................................273.4Procedures.......................................................................................................283.4.1TestingProcedures................................................................................283.4.2TreatmentProcedures............................................................................293.5DataCollectionandDataAnalysis.................................................................32ChapterFourResultsandDiscussion.......................................................................344.1ResultsoftheStudy........................................................................................344.1.1ResultsofGeneralEffectsofScaffoldedFeedback..............................344.1.2ResultsofEffectsofDifferentFeedbackTypesandLanguageLevels374.2DiscussionsoftheStudy.................................................................................404.2.1GeneralEffectsofScaffoldedFeedbackandRecast............................404.2.2GeneralEffectsofDifferentFeedbackTypesandLanguageLevels....42ChapterFiveConclusion...........................................................................................445.1MajorFindings................................................................................................445.2PedagogicalImplications................................................................................455.3LimitationsandSuggestionsforFutureStudy................................................46References....................................................................................................................48AppendixIBackgroundQuestionnaire....................................................................53AppendixIITestPaperforPre-test..........................................................................54AppendixIIITestPaperforPost-test........................................................................56AppendixIVTeachingMaterials..............................................................................58xi ChapterOneIntroduction1.1BackgroundofthePresentStudyItisreportedthataplentifulbodyofinvestigationshavebeenperformedintermsofclassroominteractioninsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA),ofwhichoneparticularlyparamountaspectiscorrectivefeedback(CF).CFisexecutedinresponsetolearners’flawedutterances.Theutteredreactionscanbecomposedoftheprovisionoftheappropriatetargetlanguagestructureoranimplicationthatamistakehasbeencommittedormetalinguisticknowledgetowardsthenatureoftheerrororanycombinationofthesekinds.IntermsofthebroadcontextofSLA,CFservesasacomponentofform-focusedinstruction,onwhichmanyresearchershaveconstantlybeenputtingparticularemphasison(Long&Robinson,1998).Fordecadesnow,thedisputesontheroleofCFinSLAhavebeenfiercelydiscussed,producingagreatdealofacademicandexperimentalexplorations.Inthepastfewyears,investigators’attentionshavebeenengagedinspeculatingandexploringthecomparativeefficacyofvariouscategoriesoforalCF,forinstance,thecomparisonbetweenexplicitandimplicitfeedback,aswellasinput-providingfeedbackandprompts(Ellisetal,2006).PriorresearchesonCFpredominatelyfollowacognitiveperspective.Inthisapproach,languagelearning,exceptionallysecondlanguagelearning,isregardedascomprisingtheknowledgeofthatlanguageinthelearner’scognition.Thelikelihoodoflearningtotakeplaceisreliedonlearner’scognitiveabilityasaresultofinput,interaction,andnoticingaswellasoutput.Atthesametime,priorCFresearcheshavelaidattentiononthegeneralfeedbacktypesutilizedbyteacherswithnoorlittleconsiderationtakenintothesocialbackgroundofthelearnerortheteacherortheclassroomsettinginwhichthefeedbackoccursorthespecificactivityinwhichlearnersarefullyengaged.BothwrittenandoralCFexplorationshavebeenbrought1 forwardbywhatBlock(2003,p.182)calledthe‘Input-Interaction-OutputModel’andfollowTarone’s(2000,p.57)censureofSLAingeneral---‘toomuchsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchfocusesonpsycholinguisticprocessesintheabstractanddoesnotconsiderthesocialcontextofL2learning’.Ashasbeenmentionedabove,formerresearcheshaveillustratedthatabundantcauseshindertheperformanceofconventionaltypesofCFinconsiderationoflearner-internalfactorssuchaslearner’sexpertiseorproficiencyaswellastheirunderstandingofCF.Meanwhile,aslanguagedevelopmentisrootedindialogiccommunicationand“occursinratherthanasaresultofinteraction”(Ellis,2009,p.12),teachersoughttobeawareofstudents’disparatecorrectiverequirementsandaccommodatetheirhelpcorrespondingly.Takingtheaboverestraintsandlimitationsintoconsideration,morerecently,someresearchersabroadhavetakenadifferentstanceontheissuebylookingatCFfromthesocioculturalperspectivesuchasNassaji&Swain(2000)andFinn,B&Metcalfe,J(2010).Inthisscope,languageisasocialconstruct,whichisindivisiblefromculture,andlearningoccursthroughmeansofinteraction.Fromthisperspective,CFcanberedefinedasfeedbackwhoseintentionistoaidlearnersinworkingouttheirlinguisticproblemsthroughcollaborativescaffoldingratherthantheprovisionofcorrectanswerormetalinguisticknowledge.Scaffoldedfeedback,whichnecessitateslearnerstocorrecttheirnon-target-likelanguagestructuresinajointendeavorbasedonthelearner’needs,isoperationalizedwithinasocioculturalperspective.Itrequiresthecollaborationworkfromboththelearnerandtheteacherwithinthelearner’szoneofproximaldevelopment(ZPD)andhasdrawnaburgeoningnumberofconcentrationsintheSLAfield.Asforgrammarlearning,regardlessofmanycontrastingstandpointsabouttheroleofgrammarinlanguagelearning,thesignificanceofgrammarcannotbewithheld.Secondlanguageresearchers,methodologistsandspecialistshaveexpoundedthatgrammaticalcompetenceisindispensableforcommunication(Brown,1994a;Larsen–Freeman,1991)andthereisoftenadeficienttreatmentofgrammarinmostcommunicativesyllabusesresultinginlowerlevelofaccuracythanthecasesunder2 formalinstruction(HinkelandFotos,2002).Aplentyofresearcheshaveacknowledgedthatthereisadecisiveroleofinstructionforgrammarlearning.Forexample,asHinkelandFotos(2002:10)claimed,grammarteachingcanreinforcelearner’scompetenceandprecisionandfacilitatetheinternalizationofitssyntacticsystem.Designingtasksandcurriculumthatbasedonwhatlearnersalreadyknowstandsforoneofthestrengthsofexplicitgrammarteachingwithintheformatofcommunicativeandinteractionalactivities.Otherresearchpointsoutthatinstructedlearnersturnouttooutperformuninstructedlearnersintheirrateoflearningandlevelofachievement(Long,1988).1.2SignificanceofthePresentStudyThecurrentstudyintendstocomparethetwodifferentwaysofpresentingfeedback,oneisscaffoldedfeedbackandtheotherisrecasttotesttheireffectsonstudents’learningofpassivevoicerespectively.Thesignificancecanbesummarizedasfollows.Ontheonehand,thisstudydiffersfromthepreviousstudiesbypresentingadifferentperspective,thesocioculturalperspectivetofeedbackresearchtosupplymoreempiricalevidencetoscaffoldedfeedbackresearch.Thisperspectiveoffersfreshandsignificantinsightstosecondlanguage(L2)learning.Uponthisperspective,theeffectivenessofCFdoesnotlieinthevarioustypesoffeedbackbutinthewaytointeractandnegotiatebetweenthelearnerandtheteacher,andtheteacher’sassistanceisgeneratedasamutualendeavorcreatedinsocialinteraction.Meanwhile,basedontheaboveanalysis,ingeneral,despitethefactthatscaffoldedfeedbackhaswonagrowingnumberofattentionsintheSLAfield,andtherearesomeresearchesonscaffoldedfeedbackabroad,fewexistathome,particularlyontheefficiencyofscaffoldedfeedbackonlearners’grammarlearninginseniorhighschool,somoreresearchesaredemandedtoprovidebountifulexperimentalclues.3 Ontheotherhand,asawidelyusedfeedbackpresentationtype,recasthasbeenidentifiedasthemostfrequentlyusedCF,anditssignificancecannotbeneglected.SinceLysterandRanta’s(1997)prominentworksonCFandtheirtaxonomyofdivergentkindsofCF,alargenumberofresearchershavefiguredouttoexploretheeffectsofvarioustypesoffeedbackonSLAinbothnaturalandlaboratorysetting.However,theresultsarefairlydifferent.AsEllisandSheen(2006)claimed,recasthasgainedaninordinateamountoffocusonSLAresearchowingtoitsuniversalityandavailabilityforresearchprograms.Therefore,thisstudyelectsrecasttomakeacomparisonwithscaffoldedfeedbacktowitnesstheireffectsrespectively.1.3ObjectivesofthePresentStudyScaffoldedfeedback,aspreviouslydiscussed,issuppliedwithintheleaner’sZPDwhereitconsistsofaformofmediationthatisflexibleforlearner’sdevelopingcompetence.ThepresentstudyendeavorstoprobeintotheeffectivenessofscaffoldedfeedbackinEnglishasasecondlanguage(ESL)pedagogicalcontextinChina.Andtheparamountfocalpointisonhowscaffoldedfeedback,accompaniedbytheteacher-learnersnegotiationmaneuvers,aidslearnerswiththeirgrammarlearning.Therefore,tobemorespecific,thisstudyseekstotacklethefollowingtwoobjectives:1)tofigureoutwhetherstudentsbenefitmorefromscaffoldedfeedbackthanfromrecastontheirdevelopmentofpassivevoicelearning.2)toseeifthereareanydifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast.4 1.4LayoutofthePresentStudyThisthesisisdividedintofivechaptersandisorganizedasfollows.ChapterOneservesastheintroductorychapter,inwhichthebackgroundinformation,significanceandobjectivesalongwiththelayoutofthestudyarepresented.ChapterTwosummarizessomepertinentliteraturereviews,consistingofconciseintroductiontosomekeyterms,precedingstudiesongrammarteachingfrombothhomeandabroadandcomprehensiveinvestigationofscaffoldedfeedbackanditsapplicationtogrammarteaching.ChapterThreeisconcernedwiththemethodology,inwhichresearchquestionsandparticipants,targetstructureandprocedures,datacollectionanddataanalysisareelaboratedon.ChapterFourintegratessomeoutcomesanddiscussionsbasedontherelateddata.ChapterFive,firstofall,summarizessomemajorfindings,andthenmovestothepedagogicalimplications,andconcludeswithsuggestionsforfuturestudy.5 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewWhileChapterOneservesasanintroductorychapter,thischapterintendstopresentacomparativelymorecomprehensiveinvestigationofgrammarteachingandscaffoldedfeedback.Firstofall,thekeytermsinthisstudy---grammarteaching,scaffolding,feedback,aswellasscaffoldedfeedbackarereviewed.Thenthewritermovestotheprecedingresearchesongrammarteachingfrombothhomeandabroad.Moreover,theintroductiontoscaffoldedfeedbackiselaboratedon.Thelastpartisconcernedwithscaffoldedfeedbackandgrammarteaching.2.1KeyTermsofthePresentStudy2.1.1GrammarTeachingBeforegoingfurtherofwhatgrammarteachingis,firstofall,weoughttofigureouttheconceptsofgrammar.Definitionsofgrammarhavekeptchangingovertheyears,andgrammarhasbeendefinedbyvariousscholarsindifferentways.AsLyons(1971)putit,grammarformsapartofillustrationofthelanguagewhichexplainsthewayhowwordsintegrateintosentencesGeoffreyLeech(1982)definesgrammarasthedevicebasedonwhichlanguagefunctionswhenutilizedtointeractandcommunicatewithotherpeople.AccordingtoH.DouglasBrown(2001),grammarisasystemofrulestakingcontrolofthetraditionalarrangementandrelationshipofwordswithinasentence.Meanwhile,Chomsky(1965)hasdevelopedafurtherexplanationofthenotionofgrammar,hedeemsthatgrammarisasystemofrulesthatregulatehowsentencesaretobecomposedof,usedandfullycomprehended,whichisknownas“syntax”.Takingtheabovefourdefinitionsofgrammarintoconsideration,wefindthatGeoffreyLeech’sviewpointofgrammarismorepreferable,grammarcannotonlybeutilizedtoanylanguageintheworldbutalsoserveasanimplicitknowledgethat6 enablesanindividualtoapplyhisfirstlanguagesuccessfully.ComparedwithLeech’sview,ChomskyandH.DouglasBrown’sperspectivesofgrammarareregardedasstructuralgrammar.H.DouglasBrowndepicts“grammar”atthewordlevelwhileChomskydefines“grammar”atthesentencelevel.Regardlessofthedifferentlevels,theybothclaimthatgrammarisasystemofrules,andtherulesserveastheexplicitanddirectknowledgeofaspecificlanguage.Grammarteaching,asissuedinanumberofteacherhandbooks,isdeemedasthedemonstrationandapplicationofdistinctgrammaticalforms.Ellis(2006;84)holdsthatgrammarteachingdrawsinanypedagogicalmethodthatfocuseslearners’attentiononsomeclear-cutgrammaticalstructurestoaidthemeithertocomprehendtheformsmetalinguisticallyorprocessitincomprehensionorproductioninordertofullyinternalizeit.Grammarteaching,inthispassage,tosomeextent,istounderstandthestructureofEnglish,meanwhile,tomastertherulesofEnglish.Moreelaboratedprecedingstudiesongrammarteachingwillbedemonstratedin2.2.2.1.2ScaffoldingParticularlydepictedasapedagogicalstrategyinitially,scaffoldingisemployedasaformofadultinputinfirstlanguageacquisition(FLA),whichsuppliestheinfantwithmaterialstodeliverutteranceslengthbylength.InSLA,itisdescribedasaprocessthatenablesachildorlearnertosolveaproblem,carryoutataskorachieveagoalwhichwouldbebeyondhisunassistedendeavor(Wood,Bruner&Ross,1976).Scaffoldingislaidforwardtowardsthefollowingsteps:tobeginwith,activatingstudents’curiosityinagivenassignment;secondly,guidingstudentstowardsappropriatetargets;thirdly,emphasizingprominentcharacteristicsofthegiventask;lastly,showingpertinenttacticstotackletheproblem.Thetermscaffoldingderivesfromsocioculturaltheory(SCT),thepredominantassertionofwhichisthatcognitionrequirestobeinspectedwithouthavingtoisolateitselffromsocialcontext.SCTregardslanguagelearningandL2learningasdialogicallyinteracted.Itisassertedthatthelanguageacquisitiondevice(LAD)issituatedinthemutuallyinteractionthatoccursamongspeakersratherthaninside7 learners’heads.Inotherwords,acquisitiontakesplaceinratherthanasaconsequenceofinteraction(Ellis,2009:2).Fromthisangle,SLAisnotanindividual-basedprocess;instead,itisasharedonebetweenvariouspeople.Oneofthenoticeablecharacteristicstomakethissharinghappenisbymeansofscaffolding.ScaffoldingisfirmlyrelatedtoVygotsky’snotionoftheZPD.TheZPDis“thedistancebetweentheactualdevelopmentallevelasdeterminedbyindependentproblemsolvingandthelevelofpotentialdevelopmentasdeterminedthroughproblemsolvingunderadultguidanceorincollaborationwithmorecapablepeers”(Vygotsky,1978:86).Learningapproximatelytakesplacewithinthelearner’sZPD(Aljaafreh&Lantolf,1994:468).AnumberofinvestigatorshaveutilizedtheconceptsofZPDandscaffoldingtoSLAresearches(e.g.Donato,1994,2000;Ohta,2000).Theyholditthatscaffoldinghasasignificantroletoplayinfacilitatingthelearner’slanguagedevelopmenttoahigherlevelasthelearnerfocuseshis/herattentiononthelanguageformandmeaning.Itisadvisedthatscaffoldingassistanceiscontinuallyrevisedbytheexperttosuittheongoingabilitiesofthelearner,whoseinternalizationofknowledgehasbeenacceleratedbyscaffoldingandhasbeenco-constructedinasocialactivity(Johnson,2004:45).Despitetheprofoundachievementsabroad,inChina,researchesonscaffoldinginstructionsarejustgettingstarted.Meanwhile,veryfewempiricalstudieshavebeenimplemented,mostofwhichjustlimittheirscopeintheoreticalanalysis.HeKekang(1997)introducesscaffoldinginstructionandcarriesoutsomepertinenttheoreticalanalysisonthisissue.What’smore,thereareotherscholarswhohavealsoperformedcertainexperimentsonscaffoldinginstructioninpolitics,chemistry,mathematicsandChineseteaching.Shen(2008)andZhang(2004)investigateresearchesonhowtoputscaffoldingstrategiesintouseinforeignlanguageclassrooms.Zhu(2005)surveysanempiricalstudyonscaffoldinginstructionintheESLclassroom.Inhisresearch,hedesignsapedagogicalmodelwithsixphasesandeightstepstofosterstudents’languageability.Theexperimentshowsthatscaffolding8 instructionexcelsotherconventionalteachingmethodsinenhancinglearners’performanceinlistening,speakingandreadingaswellaswriting.AccordingtoWood,Bruner,andRoss(1976),scaffoldinginvolvestheexperttakingcontrolofthoseportionsofataskthatarebeyondthelearner’scurrentlevelofcompetence,thusallowingthelearnertofocusontheelementswithinhisorherrangeofability.Insuchconditions,assistanceisdevelopedasamutualendeavorandthroughthesupportiveconditionestablishedinsocialinteractionbythelearnerandtheexpert(Donato,1994).So,fromtheaboveanalysis,wecansafelydrawtheconclusionthattheeffectivenessofCFisnotpertinent,toagreatdegree,tothestiffdistinctionsbetweenvarioustypesoffeedback,buttothewayhowassistancepromoteslearnerssurpasstheircurrentproficiencylevelbymeansofnegotiationandcollaboration.2.1.3FeedbackFeedback,whichissuppliedinresponsetolearners’erroneousutterances,isdefinedasateacher’sreactivemovethatinviteslearnerstoattendtothegrammaticalaccuracyoftheirutterances(Sheen,2007).AccordingtoLysterandRanta(1997),feedbackcanbeeitherexplicitorimplicit.Theformershowsexplicitlythatanerrorhasbeenmade,however,thelatter,implicitfeedback,arestrategiesthatdonotpointoutlearners’problematicutterancesinanexplicitwayinordernottoblocktheflowofcommunication.Thefollowingtablepresentsamoreelaboratedanalysisofthesixtypesofcorrectivefeedback.9 Table2.1CategorizationofTypesofCorrectiveFeedbackOfallthesixtypesofcorrectivefeedback,thelastfour,clarificationrequest,metalinguisticfeedback,elicitationandrepetitionareclassifiedintopromptsbecauseoftheirabilitytoimproveSLAbywaysofencouraginglearnerstoutterandbenefitfrommodifiedoutputwhereasexplicitcorrectionandrecastdonotstimulatearesponsefromthelearner.Inthelasttwodecades,agreatmanyofresearcheshavebeenconductedabroadintermsofcorrectivefeedbackinsecondlanguageacquisition.Here,thewriterintendstodividetherelatedresearchesfromthefollowingaspects.Thefirstresearchtypeisfirmlypertinenttolearners’internalandexternalfactors,suchaspedagogicalsettings,learners’perceptionsandproficiencylevel.Oliver,R&Mackey,A(2003),Mackey,A(2006)andLyster,R&Izquierdo,J(2009)didsomerelevantresearchesofthiskind.10 ThesecondtypeisconcernedwiththeefficacyofdifferenttypesofCFandlearneruptake.Forexample,Lyster,R(1998)investigatedexplicitcorrectionandrecastsintermsoferrortypesandlearnerrepairinimmersionclassrooms,Sheen,Y(2004)carriedoutsomeexperimentsonCFandlearneruptakeincommunicativeclassroomsacrosspedagogicalsettings.Thethirdaspectdealswiththecomparativeinvestigationofdifferentfeedbacktypessuchaseffectsbetweenrecastandelicitationaswellasrecastandprompts.(e.g.NassajiH,2009;Dilans,G,2010).Apartfromtheabovementionedresearchesabroad,manyresearchesalsohavebeenconductedathome.ResearcherssuchasYangYingli(2013)andWeiRan(2015)didsomerelatedresearches.Recast,asthemostfrequentlyusedtypeofCFininstructionalsettings,accordingtoLyster&Ranta(1997),isdefinedas“ateacher’sreformulationofallorpartofastudent’sutterance,minustheerror.”Itsdistinctcharacteristicliesinthatitenableslearnerstopayfullattentiontothespecifictargetstructuresduringtheinteractionalactivities.Researchesonrecasthavebeennumerous.Long(2007)claimedthatrecastcontextualizesthelanguageinputandofferslearnersopportunitiestofocusonlanguageformswhileatthesametimecomprehendingtheinformation.Meanwhile,asMcDonough&Mackey(2000)pointedout,recasthelpstoprovidelearnerswithopportunitiesformodifiedoutput,whichcontributesgreatlytoSLA.OtherresearcherssuchasHan(2002)andIshida(2004)claimedthatrecastplaysabeneficialroleintermsofL2learning.Meanwhile,Leeman(2003)exploredthatrecastsuppliesnegativefeedbackforstudents’learningofthetargetstructure.Also,inChina,agrowingnumberofscholars,forinstance,GuShanshan&WangTongshun(2008)haveconductedempiricalexperimentsonrecast,whichareprincipallyfocusedontheeffectsofitongrammarlearningintermsoftheinteractionalrelationshipbetweenstudents’perceptionofrecastaswellasstudents’languagelearningandmodifiedoutputonEFLandsoon.Basedontheaboveanalysis,recast,asarepresentativeofconventionalfeedback11 presentingtype,hasgainedprogressivelymoreattention.Here,inthisthesis,thewriterintendstocomparescaffoldedfeedbackwithrecasttotestifyitseffectivenessrespectively.2.1.4ScaffoldedFeedbackAsamethoddirectedtomakethebestoftheadvantagesofretrievalpracticebymeansofsupplyingcumulativecluesuntilthecorrectanswerwouldbeself-generated(Finn,B&Metcalfe,J.2010),scaffoldedfeedbackmethodinitiallyborrowsfromthedomainofpedagogicalpsychology,inwhichthescaffoldingapproachhasconstantlybeenregardedasaproductivefacilitatoroflearning.Scaffoldedfeedbackisdistinctfromotherwaysofpresentingfeedbackforthesimplereasonthatitmakesthebestofself-generation.Atthesametime,itguaranteesthatthecorrectanswerwillbeuttered.However,othermethodsdemandlessaborativework.Becausescaffoldingrelatestotheexplicitsupportoflearnersduringthelearningprocess,scaffoldedfeedbackinapedagogicalsettingmayinvolvemodels,hints,prompts,clues,fragmentaryexplanations,togetherwithexplicitinstruction(Hartman,2002).Scaffoldingiswithdrawnlengthbylengthaslongasstudentsobtaintheircognitivegrounds,socorrectiveinformationcouldbethemostbeneficialatinitialstagesoflearning.Guidanceandcuesmaybemoreinstrumentalafterwards,andthequestioniswhen.AccordingtoVygotsky(1978),externalscaffoldscanberemovedwhenthelearnerdevelopsmoresophisticatedcognitivesystems,wherethesystemofknowledgeitselfbecomespartofthescaffoldfornewlearning.Bransford,Brown,andCooking(2000)intheirbook,HowPeopleLearn,elaboratedonhowpsychologicaltheoriesandperspectivescanbeputintoactionsandpractices.Intermsoffeedback,theyadvocatedagoal-directedwaytowardslearningbymeansofadoptingscaffoldedfeedbackwhichsharesthefollowingtraitsandmerits:1)Ittriggersthelearner’seagernesspertinenttothegivenassignmentsandtasks;2)Itcutsdowntheassignmentsinordertomakethemmoreachievableandattainable;3)Itofferssomecommandstoaidthelearnertopayfullattentiontoachieving12 thegoal;4)Itelaboratelydemonstratesthedistinctionsbetweenthelearner’soutcomeandthepreferableoridealsolution;5)Itlessensanxietyandrisk;6)Itmodelsandclearlyrevealstheobjectivesoftheactivitytobedone.Moredetailedanalysisofscaffoldedfeedbackwillbepresentedinsection2.3and2.4.2.2PreviousStudiesonGrammarTeachingAnadequatenumberofforeignanddomesticscholarshavecarriedoutresearchesongrammarthatdemonstratesgrammarteachingstillhasasignificantandrepresentativeroletoplayintheFLTfield.Thispartdesignstoexpoundthecontemporarysituationofgrammarteachingfrombothhomeandabroad.2.2.1StudiesAbroadAsThornbury(1999)putit,foreignlanguageteachingisconstantlyprogressingbetweenthetwocontrastingperspectivesthatapprovesofgrammarteachingandobjectstogrammarteaching.Thedisputeofhowtoteachgrammarandthealterationofgrammarteachingstancealsohasundergoneacomparableprocess.Thegrammartranslationmethodstoodoutasthemostancientway,whichhadbeenintheleadinFLTforahundredyears.ExplicitgrammartranslationteachingdevelopedbasedontheteachingofLatinandGreekwhichpaidmoreattentiontolanguageform.Thepurposeofadoptingsuchamethodwastofosterstudents’capabilityofreadingEnglishoriginalnovelsandtodevelopstudents’wisdom.Severaldistinctcharacteristicsofthegrammartranslationmethodcanbeobservedinthefollowingaspects:firstly,thecentreattentionsarepaidtoreadingandwritingwhilelittleornosystematicfocusisonspeakingorlistening.Secondly,theteachingofgrammarfollowsadeductiveway,thatis,thegrammarrulesarepresentedandstudied,afterthat,examplesaregiventhroughthetranslationexercisesandgrammar13 exercisesarepracticed.Lastly,students’motherlanguageservesasthemediumofthewholeinstruction.Inthemiddleof20thcentury,thegrammartranslationmethodgavewaytotheaudio-lingualmethodwhichfocusedonsentencepatterndrills.Themaincharacteristicsofthisapproachwerelisted:firstly,languageteachingstartsfromdialoguesandpronunciationisstressed.Secondly,moreattentionsarelaidtolisteningandspeaking.Lastly,grammaritemsandrulesaretaughtinaninductiveway.Thencamedirectmethodthatarguedforeignlanguagelearningjustlikethefirstlanguagelearningshouldgooninthenaturalenvironment,andadvocatedthegrammarrulesshouldberefinedinpractice,vocabularylearningistaughtbyobjectsandgestures.Thismethodlaterwascalledimplicitgrammarteaching.Explicitgrammarteachingrequiresteacherstomakedeductiveexplanationsoflanguagerules,andthenguidethestudentstodotherelatedpractice.Therefore,sincethedirectmethod,thefieldofforeignlanguageteachinghasaheatdebateaboutwhethergrammarteachingshouldbetaughtinanexplicitwayorimpliedway.Explicitgrammarteachingtakesformasthecenterofteaching.Itisateachingattempt,thepurposeofwhichistofixstudents"attentiononlinguisticformsthroughavarietyofwaysanditemphasizeslearninggrammarrulessoastobeabletoefficientlyandaccuratelyusethelanguagecomponents.Implicitgrammarteachingemphasizestheroleofnaturalenvironment.2.2.2StudiesatHomeSince1949,thegrammartranslationmethodhasbeentreatedasthemainteachingpedagogyinChina,grammarteachingandgrammarknowledgehavebeenthecoresofEnglishlanguageteaching.Withintroductionofvariousteachingpedagogies,thegrammartranslationmethodwasthoughttobeoutofdateanddidn"tmeetthepurposeofEnglishlanguageteaching.CommunicativeapproachwhichisbasedonsecondlanguageacquisitionapproachbecamethemostpopularEnglishteachingmethodafter1980.Communicativeapproachemphasizesthelanguageinuseandcommunicativecompetenceinsteadoflanguagerules.Fromthenon,moreandmorecriticismongrammarteachingarose,andlessandlessimportancewasattached14 togrammarteachinginELT.What"smore,thenewcurriculumin2003pointedthatthekeypointofEnglishCurriculumRevolutionwastochangethesituationthatinEnglishclassgrammaticalknowledgewereoverstatedwithstudents"competencetousethetargetlanguagebeinglessemphasized.Allthis,ontheotherhand,leadstheEnglishteachingandlearninginChinatotheotherextremethatalotofteachersspendlittletimeongrammarteaching,andstudentsseethegrammarlearningtediousandunnecessary,evenuseless.Intoday"shighschools,wecouldeasilyfindthatanincreasingnumberofstudentscan"tcommunicatewithaccuracy,orjustreadthelongsentencewithguess(Chen,2007).Nowadays,moreandmoreeducatorsandscholarsbegintoreconsiderthesignificanceofgrammarteachingtoELT.XuLong(2006)mentionedinductivemethodanddeductivemethodarethetwomainmethodsingrammarteaching.Theinductionstepis:observation---analysis---practice,thisisfrompracticetotheoryandthentopractice.It’saprocessoftheunderstanding.Anddeductionstepsare:presentgrammaticalrules-givingexamples-explaininggrammarrules-practice,thisisaprocessofcognitiontheorytopractice.Thetwomethodseachhavetheirownprosandcons.Inpracticalteaching,beforetheteacherdecidestouseeitherofthemethod,theteachershouldtakesomeelementsintoaccount,suchasthestudents’age,Englishcompetenceandgrammaticalitems.Bothoralcommunicationandtraditionalwaysareadopted,highlightingtheteachingfocus.2.2.3CommentsSo,basedontheaboveanalysis,wecanseethatbothexplicitteachingmethodandimplicitteachingmethodhelpalotinteachinggrammar,buttheyalsoshowsomedemeritsintheteachingpractice.Explicitgrammarteachingemphasizesonlanguageforms,butseemstotendtoignorelanguagemeaninganditsproperuse.Implicitgrammarteachingfocusesonthemeaninganduseofthelanguagebutignorestheaccuracyoflanguageuse.Meanwhile,therehavebeensomepleasantchangesinEnglishgrammarteaching.Thetraditionalstaticgrammarinstructionhasgraduallydevelopedintodynamicteaching.However,therestillexistsomeproblems.Manyresearchesareabout15 grammarteachingtheoriesorsomegrammarteachingmethods.However,theresearchesaboutspecificgrammarteachingmodesareseldom,especiallyamodedesignedfromtheperspectiveofstudentsratherthanteachers.2.3IntroductiontoScaffoldedFeedback2.3.1DifferencesfromConventionalFeedbackConventionalfeedbackanalyzescorrectivefeedbackfromacognitiveperspective,whichconsiderslanguagetobeoneofthemanymentalprocessesorevenasubordinatepartofmentaldevelopment.Itclaimslanguagetobeapartofcognitivedevelopment.Tobeabletolearnanewword,thelearnerhastounderstandaconceptthewordrepresents.Meanwhile,languageisregardedasamentalprocesscomposedofabstractrules.Limitedastheyare,thelanguagerulesareabletoproducenumeroussentences,whosegrammaticalgendersarefreefromtherestrictionssuchasinteractionalsettingsandcommunicatordifferences.Also,cognitiveperspectiveholdsthattheaimandsubjectofsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchissecondlanguageacquisitioninsteadofsecondlanguageuseandtheprimaryfocusofsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchistoinspecthowlearningtakesplace,whatmentalprocessandlearnerfactorscontributetolanguageacquisitionaswellaswhetherandhowlearningoccursthroughlanguageuse.Takingthisfocusintoconsideration,whatisprofoundlysignificantarecognitivefactorssuchasknowledgerepresentationandprocessing.Nonetheless,scaffoldedfeedback,whichisdissimilartotheconventionalfeedbacktypes,followsasocioculturalperspective.Thisangelascribesthepredominantroleintheprocessoflanguageacquisitiontotheenvironment,andthemajorfocusofattentionisthewayinteractionguidestotheprogressionoflanguagecompetence.Socioculturalperspectiveacknowledgesthatlanguageisasocialphenomenon;everysocialcontexthasitsuniqueculturalcharacteristics,whichareinseparablefromlanguage.Furthermore,languageflourishesthroughinteractionwith16 otherhumanbeings,whichgivesrisetoinputmodificationi.e.conformingittothecapabilityofthelearner.Theprocessoflearningisnotthesolitaryexperimentandtheanalysisoftheinformationthelearnerisexposedto,buttheconstantinteractionwiththemediator,whomodifiestheinputtotailorthecognitiveandcommunicativeneedsofthelearner.Theprincipalfocusofsocioculturalperspectiveisonlanguageuse.Sincelanguageacquisitionandlanguageusecannotbeseparatedwithoutdifficulty,whatisimportantaresocialelementsandtheirinfluenceonlanguage.2.3.2FeaturesofScaffoldedFeedbackAdjustingthemselveswiththeabovedirection,AljaafrehandLantolf(1994:468)developedthefollowingmechanismsofefficientassistancewithintheZPD.Accordingtothem,threedistinctivecharacteristicsofscaffoldedfeedbackcanbesummarizedasfollows.Firstofall,assistanceshouldbegraduated.Duringtheprocessofsupplyingscaffoldedfeedbackinamutualactivity,assistanceofferedbyamoreskilledorprofessionalpersonisdesignedtofigureoutthenovice’sZPDsoastoprovidetheproperlevelofhelp.Inthisway,wecangreatlyhelpthelearnertoworkathisorherbesthiddenlevelofcapability.Theaimhereistoevaluatetheminimumlevelofassistanceneededbythenovicestudenttoconductagiventaskwithsuccess.Therefore,assistanceconstantlytendstobeginwithaprettyimplicitorabstractwayandproceedstobemorespecificormoretangible,tilltheproperlevelisreachedasdetectedbythenovices’reactpatternsandwaystotheassistance.Secondly,assistanceshouldbecontingent,thatis,itoughttobeprovidedonlywhenthereisaneed,andremovedwhenthenoviceshowsthecapacityofself-controlandabilitytofunctionalone.Experimenthasrevealedthatchildrentendtooverrejectassistanceprovidedbyparentsassoonastheyfigureoutthattheyareabletoconductataskindependently.Finally,assistanceshouldbedialogic,withboththemoreskilledpersonandnovicecooperatingtotackletheproblem.DialogueisanindispensablefactorofVygotskyantheory.Withoutmutualdialogueandinteraction,itisnearlyimpossibletouncoverthenovice’sZPD.17 Scaffoldedfeedback,ontheonehand,canbeanefficientwayofdemonstratingfeedbackwhichinitiallyneedsthenovicetomakefulluseoftheirinterlanguageknowledgetoreorganizetheirill-formedpartsofutterances;ontheotherhand,ifthatendeavorfailstoworkwell,themoresophisticatedpersonorteacherduplicatesthedivisionofscaffoldingthroughwaysofsupplyingadditionalexplicitorspecificfeedbacklengthbylength.Bythisway,feedbackofthiskindisnotonlyscaffoldedbutalsoconformedtolearners’ZPD.2.3.3StepsandProceduresofProvidingScaffoldedFeedbackHowcanweapplysuchkindoffeedbacktopractice?Andhowcanwemediateandadjustittodifferentextent?Here,basedontheaboveanalysis,thewriterwilladopttheRegulatoryScaledevelopedbyAljaafrehandLantolf(1994:471)withinthelearners’ZPDtoperformscaffoldedfeedback(seeFigure2.1).Thescalebelowconductsassistanceasacontinuumcovering12levels,beginningfromthemostimplicitassistancetothemostexplicitassistancetofacilitatestudentstorealizeself-regulation.18 Figure2.1RegulatoryScale-implicit(strategic)toexplicit(FromAljaafreh&Lantolf,1994,p.471)Detailedanalysisofthedialogicinteractionbetweenthemoreexperiencedpersonortheteacherandthenoviceorthelearnerturnsouttorevealalterationingrammaticalcompetencethatdemonstratedthenoviceweremovingfromtheinitialstateofintremendousneedofother-regulationofferedbythemoreexperiencedtothepartlyorwhollyself-generatedabilitytokeepaneyeonandreviseerrorsinwrittenutterances.AljaafrehandLantolf(1994)deemESLdevelopmentasaprocessofmovingfromother-regulationbymeansofaseriesofsteps,eachofwhichisfeaturedbyvariouscapabilitiestofigureoutanerror,reviseanerror,andthequantityandqualityofassistancerequiredtodothis.19 Basedonpedagogicalinterventions,amajorobstacletoinvestigationisonhowtoperformthequantityandqualityamountofassistance.Unstructuredand/orwhollyemergentassistancemayoffertheindispensablehelprequiredbyanovicestudenttoperformataskthatheorshefailstodosoindependently,butsuchconditionsareproblematicinthefollowingtwoaspects:(1)teachersmayover-orunder-supplyassistance;(2)qualitativeandquantitativeamountofassistancesandtheirpreciserelationstolearnerperformancecannotbeconsistentlyandcontinuouslydocumented.Totacklethisproblem,theabove13-point‘regulatoryscale’,whichmodelstutororteacherbehaviors’rangingfromwide,macro-scopeandimplicitleadingquestionstomicro-scopeandexplicitphrasescorrectionsareprovided.Thisscalewasadoptedtotakedownobservablebehaviorwithspecialattentiontoqualitativedifferencesinassistancesuppliedbythetutor.NotethatLevel0(zero)marksindependentfunctioningonthepartofthelearner,andLevel1iswhenthetutorisintroducedintothesettingasapotentialpartner.TheactualcooperativehelpstartsfromLevel2,inwhichtheleastdirecthelpisprovided.Whenthelearnercancorrectanerrorwiththislevelofhelps/heisconsideredasnearingtheself-regulationendofthecontinuumandassuchwillsoonbeabletoovercometheerroronhis/herown.Ontheotherhand,helpprovidedattheotherendofthecontinuumistotallyexplicitandindicatesthatthelearner’sresponseisother-regulatedrequiringexplicitfeedbackfromthetutorbeforeinternalisationoccurs.2.3.4CommentsTheaboveanalysismainlydealswith,ontheonehand,threedistinctcharacteristicsofscaffoldedfeedback,ontheotherhand,thestepsandproceduresofhowtopresentscaffoldedfeedbackinauthenticEnglishclassroomteaching.Onawhole,scaffoldedfeedbackissuchakindoffeedbackthatisgraduated,contingentanddialogic.Meanwhile,assistanceofferedshouldbedirectedtolearners’ZPD.20 2.4ScaffoldedFeedbackandGrammarTeachingTheresearchliteratureonfeedbackanditsrelationtoL2developmentisample.Inspiteofthefactthatfindingsandconclusionshavebeenconflictinganddivergent,anumberofinvestigationshaveengagedinimplicitandexplicitinputorthequantityandcategoryofinterventioninvolved.Researchesbasedonasocioculturalperspectiveaddressesfeedbackfromatotallydisparateandmoreholisticvantagepoint.Specifically,correctivefeedbackandnegotiationarecontextualizedasacollectiveendeavorasscaffoldedfeedback.ThissectionprovidesadetailedoverviewofsomeresearchesthathaveexploredthenatureofCFasaformofprovidinglearnerswithassistedhelp---scaffoldedfeedback.2.4.1.PreviousStudiesAbroadIntheirstudy,Aljaafreh&Lantolf(1994)madeaninvestigationonhowvarioustraineesreacttodifferentlayersofnegativefeedbackwithinthelearners’ZPD.Theparticipants,3adultstudentsadmittedtoanESLreadingandwritingcoursefor8weeks,wererequiredtohandinataskeveryweekandafterwardsaccomplishatreatmentassignmenttogetherwithatutorformorethan8weeks.Duringthewholeinstructionalprocess,thefollowingfourgrammaticalfeaturesweretobereviewed;theywerearticles,tensemarking,useofprepositionsandmodalverbs.Inthecourseofthetreatmentsessions,the3participantsweredemandedtorefertotheirownwritingandrevisetheircommittederrors.Afterthat,thetrainersuppliedeverysubjectscaffoldedfeedback.Intheirdatainvestigation,theanalystsfiguredout12layersofscaffoldedfeedbackrangingfromtheleastdirecttothemostclear-cut.Theinvestigatorshelditthatvariouslearnerscommittingthesimilarerrorrequireddifferentlayersofscaffoldedfeedbacktorecognizetheirerror.Meanwhile,thefindingsdemonstratedthatlearners’performanceadvancedfromother-regulatedconducttoself-regulatedact.Aljaafreh&Lantolf(1994)summarizedthatefficientcorrectivefeedbackistheonethatisdialogicallydominatedbyalearnerandamoresophisticatedindividualinsteadofthatoverwhichthenovicehasnodisposition.21 Aljaafreh&Lantolf’sinvestigationofferedcompellingintuitivenesstothenatureofnegativefeedbackanditscorrelationwithinterlanguageimprovement.Still,thewholeresearchdesignAljaafreh&Lantolfcarriedoutwaspredominantlyexplanatory:nomethodicalcomparisonwasconductedbetweencorrectivefeedbackofferedwithintheZPDandfeedbacksuppliedirrespectiveoftheZPD.Nassaji&Swain(2000)madeacomparisonwhethernegotiatedassistanceadministeredwithinthelearner’sZPDismuchmoreefficientthanhelpsuppliedunderanycircumstancesandregardlessofthelearner’sZPD.Thissmall-scaleinvestigationwasconductedonEnglisharticlesforwritingEnglishcompositionsbetweentwoadultKoreanlearnersofintermediateEnglishlevel.Thetwosubjectsweredealtwithinthefollowingways:the‘ZPDstudents’wereprovidedwithcorrectivefeedbackbasedonanunplannedalternativefromamongtheRegulatoryScale’s13indirecttodirectstrategies.Inthisway,theresearchendeavoredtoofficiallyandquasi-experimentallyexaminetheassumptionwhichfeedbackcalibratedalonganindirecttodirectcontinuum,andthatismutuallydiscussedinordertocoordinatewithalearner’sZPD,isfarmoredevelopmentallyadvantageouswhencomparedwithconventionalorrandomkindsoffeedback.Furthermore,Nassaji&Swain(2000)concludedthat,ontheonehand,“themoreexplicittheprompt,themoreeffectiveitmaybeevenifitisprovidedinanon-collaborativerandomfashion”(p.47),ontheotherhand,scaffoldedfeedbackcanbemoreconvincingandpersuasiveinsteadofunplannedfeedback.Nonetheless,therestillremainedsomelimitationsanddemerits.Ontheonehand,thisinvestigationismerelyapilotstudy,whosespecificattentionisonEnglisharticles.MoreinvestigationsonotherfacetsofEnglishgrammarratherthanarticlesintermsoflearnabilityandlinguisticconsiderationsareurgentlyrequired.Ontheotherhand,thisstudylimitsitsgeneralisabilityinthepresentationoftheunplannedprompts.Thetutorattemptednottoinvolveinanymediationwiththelearnerintherandomassistanceprocedure,butfromtimetotimeinrealsituationthiscanbeartificialandwithgreatdifficulty.22 Finn,B&Metcalfe,J(2010)contrastedscaffoldedfeedbackwiththreeotherfeedbackdemonstrationmechanisms(answer-until-correctmultiple-choicefeedback,conventionalcorrectivefeedback,andminimalfeedback)toexaminewhichkindoffeedbackcouldachievethemostrobustgainsinerrorcorrectionandsummarizedthatscaffoldedfeedbackgivesrisetothebestmemoryforthecorrectanswersatadelay.Rassaei,E(2014)investigatedandcomparedtheefficacyofscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastsonsecondlanguagedevelopmentonuniversitystudentsinamajorEnglishlanguageteachinginstituteinIranonthestudyofEnglishwh-questionforms.Hefoundthatscaffoldedfeedbackcontributedtohigherlevelsofdevelopment.Also,theauthorsuggestedthatitwouldbemorefirmlyestablishediftheywouldbecomparedwithothermoreexplicittypesofcorrectivefeedbackoralessevenorevenanoncollaborativemanner.2.4.2PreviousStudiesatHomeInChina,alotofworkhasbeendonetocorrectivefeedback,andthereisagrowinginterestinscaffoldingandscaffoldinginstructioninthefieldofsecondlanguageteachingandlearning,butfewstudiesareconcernedwithscaffoldedfeedback.Sobasedontheaboveanalysis,thisstudyintendstoinvestigatehowscaffoldedfeedbackworksoutinEFLclassroomsinChina.2.4.3CommentsBroadlyspeaking,thissectionmainlyoffersageneralpictureofwhatthepreviousresearchershavedonetoscaffoldedfeedbackfrombothhomeandabroad.Fromtheabovereview,itcanbeseenthatstudiesabroadrelatedtoscaffoldedfeedbackanditseffectivenessarecarriedoutmuchearlierandbroaderthanthestudiesathome.Ascanbejudgedfromthereview,ontheonehand,someresearchershavetheoreticallyadmittedtheimportanceofinvestigatingtheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonlearners’languagelearning;manyresearchers,ontheotherhand,haveempiricallyexaminedthehighoccurrenceandusabilityinoroutofclassroom,andthefacilitativeroleofrecastonL2developmentespeciallywhencomparedtoapurelycommunicativeprograminwhichnoCFisprovided.However,evidenceforthebeneficialroleofscaffoldedfeedbackhasbeenweakerinclassroomresearch,23 includingstudiesthathavecomparedtheeffectsofrecasttootherCFtechniques.What’smore,onlyafewresearcheshavebeenrelatedtothecombinationofscaffoldedfeedbackwithrecast,especiallyamongdifferentlanguagelevelsofthestudents.Therefore,moreempiricalstudiesonthisissueinaChineseEFLcontextarebadlyneeded.Onthegroundofthis,thepresentstudyattemptstoinvestigatetheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastongrammarcorrectionofthestudentsatdifferentlanguagelevels.2.5SummaryThischapterpresentstheliteraturereviewofthisstudy.Fromtheaboveanalysis,firstofall,wegetawholepictureofthekeytermsofthisstudy,grammarteaching,scaffolding,andfeedbacktogetherwithscaffoldedfeedback.Secondly,previousstudiesongrammarteachingarereviewedfrombothhomeandabroad,fromwhichweknowthatgrammarteachinghasundergonetremendouschangesinthecourseoflanguageteachingfield,andthereseemedtobenoconsensusonwhetherandhowgrammarshouldbetaught.Furthermore,grammarteachingmethodshaveexperiencedenormousphases.Thirdly,introductiontoscaffoldedfeedbackarethoroughlypresentedfromthefollowingaspects:thedifferentresearchperspectivefromconventionalfeedback,itsuniquecharacteristicsaswellasthepresentationmethodsandprocedures.Thelastpartisconcernedaboutprecedingstudiesonscaffoldedfeedbackandgrammarteaching,fromwhichwegettoknowthatmoreempiricalresearchesarerequiredinChinatoprovidemoreevidencestotesttheeffectivenessofscaffoldedfeedback.24 ChapterThreeMethodologyIntheprecedingchapter,thewriterelaboratedonsomepertinentliteraturereviewconcerningfindingsandapplicationsongrammarteachingandscaffoldedfeedbacktoSLA.Herecomestheexperimentalsection.Inthischapter,researchquestionsandhypotheses，participantsandtargetstructure，proceduresanddatacollectionaswellasdataanalysiswillbedemonstrated.3.1ResearchQuestionsandHypothesesAshasbeendiscussedabove,theauthorintendstoconductanempiricalstudyontheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonseniorhighschoolstudents’learningofEnglishgrammar,tobemorespecific,learningofthepassivevoice.AccordingtotheresearchobjectivesmentionedinChapterOne,tworesearchquestionswillbeaddressedbelow:1)Dostudentsbenefitmorefromreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackthanfromreceivingrecastontheirdevelopmentofpassivevoicelearning?Ifso,whataretheeffects?2)Arethereanydifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast?So,basedonthetworesearchquestions,twocorrespondingresearchhypotheseswillbepresentedasfollows:1)StudentsreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackbenefitalotmorethanfromrecastontheirdevelopmentofEnglishgrammarlearning,whichpromoteshigherlevelofprogression.2)Therearesomedifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast.25 3.2ParticipantsTheresearchsubjectsparticipatinginthewholeresearchexperimentwere114seniorhighschoolstudentsofSeniorGradeOneinNo.1MiddleSchoolofChangning,Hunanprovincewiththeiraverageagesrangingfrom15to17.Theparticipantswere58girlsand56boysfromtwoparallelclasses,ClassOneandClassTwo,whohavebeenlearningEnglishasaforeignlanguage(EFL)forthreeandahalfyear.Meanwhile,allthestudentsusedtosharethesametypeofEnglishtextbook,whichwaspublishedandsponsoredbyPeople’sEducationPress.Also,allthestudentshavenevervisitedanyEnglish-speakingcountriesbefore,neitherhavetheyreceivedoralEnglishclassesbyforeignlanguageteachers.The114participantsinthetwoclasseswereseparatedintotwogroups,namely,anexperimentalgroup(EG),andtheother,acontrolgroup(CG).Thetwogroupseachincludedtwosub-groupswith15high-levelstudentsand15low-levelstudents.Theexperimentalgroupreceivedscaffoldedfeedbackinthewholeresearchprocesswhilethecontrolgroupreceivedrecastfortheirerrors.Inthisstudy,theclassificationofstudents’differentlanguagelevelswasbasedontheirusualperformanceandthemeanscoresofthelastfinalexamination.Thehigh-levelstudentswereintermediateEnglishlearnerswhosharedagoodcommandofEnglish,andtendedtoperformwellinEnglishclasses,andtheywererandomlychosenfromthetop20studentsinthetwoclassesrespectively.Thelow-levelstudentswerestudentswithelementarybasesonEnglishlearningwhoseEnglishwerenotgoodenough,andtheirperformanceinEnglishclasseswerenotsatisfying.Thelow-levelstudentswererandomlyselectedfromthelast20studentsinthetwoclassesrespectively.Astotheinstructor,owingtothefactthatthewritertendedtobemorefamiliartotheteachingmethodsandthetotalproceduresaswellasinordertodelimitthepossibilityofbiasandotherpotentialdifficulties,thewriterherselfwasinvolvedinthewholeexperimentalprocessandwasresponsibleforthetreatmentsessions.Meanwhile,twomoreteacherswereinvolvedtohelpcollectthedata.26 3.3TargetStructureEnglishvoiceisenormouslysignificantandformsanessentialpartinEnglishlanguageteachingandlearning.ThetargetformofthecurrentstudyfocusesonEnglishpassivevoice.Threereasonsforpickingupthisgrammaticalstructurearepresentedbelow.Firstofall,asoneoftheresearchobjectivesofthecontemporarystudyistoexploretheeffectivenessofscaffoldedfeedbackonagrammaticalstructurethatlearnershavealreadygraspedtoacertaindegreeinsteadoflearninganentirelynewform,EnglishpassivevoiceisnotathoroughlybrandnewgrammaticalelementtoSeniorGradeOnestudents.Secondly,asisknowntoall,masteringEnglishpassivevoiceposesdifficultyandobstacletoChineseEFLlearners.TherearetwovoicesinlearningEnglishgrammar,theactivevoiceandthepassivevoice.Broadlyspeaking,learningEnglishpassivevoiceisparticularlyproblematicforChineseEFLlearners.Oneconstantlytendstoexploitpassivevoicetostresstherecipientoftheact.LearnersatthislanguageleveltendtobemoreinclinedtogetfamiliarwithEnglishpassivevoiceandhaveacquiredatleastcertainrule-basedknowledgeofit.However,theymaystillhavedifficultyinapplyingthisgrammarstructureflawlesslyandaccurately,particularlyunderaninstructionalsetting.Inshort,EnglishpassivevoicedeservestobeexaminedforbeingatremendouslysignificantbutproblematiclinguisticstructureforChineseEFLlearners.Lastbutnottheleast,thegrammaticalstructuresanditemsintermsofCFresearchesarefarfrombeingextensivetoobtainageneralandholisticunderstandingoftheapplicationofCFonL2development.DespitethefactthatthereremainednumerousprecedinginvestigationsonCF,therewasnotevenasingleresearchapplyingscaffoldedfeedbacktothelearningofEnglishpassivevoice.InvestigationsthatexaminetheeffectofscaffoldedfeedbackonthedevelopmentofEnglishpassivevoicearedesirableandpreferable.27 3.4ProceduresThesubsequentpartdemonstratesthecomprehensiveproceduresofthestudy,inwhichthetestingprocedureandthetreatmentprocedurearelisted.Thetestingproceduresincludedaquestionnaireandtwotests.Meanwhile,thetreatmentprocedureelaboratedontheinstructionalmaterialsandproceduresintheclassroominstruction.Thewholeprocedureswentthroughformorethansixweeks.3.4.1TestingProceduresApretestandapost-test(seeAppendixⅡandⅢ)areincludedinthepresentstudy.Thegrammaticaljudgmenttest(GJT)wasadoptedtoevaluatethecurrentlevelandpotentiallearninggainsbyexploringlearners’useoftheEnglishpassivevoiceinobligatorycontextsinthepre-testandthepost-test.IntheGJTexercises,directionsweresuppliedinbothEnglishandChineseinordertoguaranteethatalltheparticipantsfullycomprehendedwhattheywereabouttodowiththefollowingitems.Altogethertherewere2questiontypesinvolvedineachtestpaperwith40similaritemsinthepre-testandthepost-testseparately,ofwhichonequestiontypewastojudgethesentences(theverbofthepredicate)ascorrectorincorrect,theothertypewastofillintheblankswiththeproperformofthegivenverbs.Subjectswereinformedthattheyshoulddrawatickintheblanksifcorrectandunderlinetheincorrectpartandwritedownthecorrectformifincorrect.ThetotalpointsofquestiontypeⅠwere60,inwhichparticipantscouldacquire2pointsiftheymanagedtofigureouttheerrorineachitem,andcanget3pointsiftheywritedownthecorrectform.Meanwhile,thetotalpointsofquestiontypeⅡwere40,with1pointforeachblank.Meanwhile,onebackgroundquestionnairewasinvolvedbeforethepre-testinthewholeexperimentalprocess.Thebackgroundquestionnaire,ontheonehand,wasassignedtoacquirecertainpersonalinformationonthesubjects,forinstance,theiracademicyearsandgenders,thelengthoflearningEnglishasaforeignlanguageaswellastheirhabitationsandsoon.Ontheotherhand,itwasdesignatedtohavea28 betterknowledgeofsubjects’perceptions,attitudesandreactionsaltogetherwiththedifficultiestheyhadinlearningEnglish,particularlyonlearninggrammar.MoredetailedinformationonbackgroundquestionnairewillbedemonstratedinAppendixI.Thefollowingfigureprovidesthetestingproceduresoftheexperiment.BackgroundQuestionnaireWeek1Pre-testEGCGFourtreatmentFourtreatmentsessionssessionsWeek2-3FocusedscaffoldedFocusedrecastfeedbackWeek4Post-testFigure3.1TestingProceduresoftheExperiment3.4.2TreatmentProceduresThestudyintendstotestifyandexploretheapplicationofscaffoldedfeedbacktoEnglishgrammarlearning,tobemorespecific,Englishpassivevoicelearningwith114participants,whichwascarriedoutinaneducationalsettingintwoparallelclasses.Alltheparticipantswererandomlydividedintotwogroups,anEGandaCG.Fourdifferentinstructionalmaterialsintermsofacomprehensiontask,aretellingtask,adictoglosstaskandanoralproductionactivityareinvolvedinthetreatmentprocedurestoelicittheuseofthetargetform,whichwereimplementedduringthefoursessionsbytheresearcher.Thetwogroupsadoptedthesameinstructionalmaterialsbutdifferenttreatmentsduringtheexperiment.29 ThecomprehensiontaskwasapassageontheinventionofcoffeeadaptedfromthetextbookGoforit!Students’Book3followingsevenpertinentquestionsonthehistoryofcoffeeandtheretellingtaskwasashortstoryofthediscoveryofdinosaureggsinBeijingMuseumofNaturalHistory,bothofthetwotasksweredesignedtoarousestudents’awarenessaswellastoexaminestudents’understandingandcomprehensiononEnglishpassivevoice.Thedictoglosstasktalkedaboutsomerelatedcomponentsofthemuseum,whichwasbuiltbythelocalgovernmentandtheoralproductionactivitywasanepisodefromthestoryofTomandJerrywithsixdifferentpicturesandsomekeywords.Thesetwoactivitiesweredesignatedtostrengthenparticipants’knowledgeofthegrammaritemsandtostimulatetheiruseofpassivevoiceorally.Thetreatmentprocessconsistedoffourperiodsofinstructions,(seeAppendixⅤfordetailedteachingmaterials),whichwerearrangedwithanincreasingamountofdifficultyfromthecomprehensiontask,followedbyaretellingtaskandadictoglosstasktotheoralproductionactivity,andeachofthefourperiodsofinstructionlastedfor45minutes.Thewholetreatmentprocesswasconductedandinstructedbythewriterherself,anditwasvideotapedforfurtheranalysis.Thefollowingparagraphpresentsacomprehensiveanalysisoftheinstructionalprocess.Intheinitialperiod,firstorall,studentswereprovidedwithacomprehensionpassagewhoinventedcoffeethatcontainsagreatnumberofthetargetform,Englishpassivevoiceinthisstudy.Then,theinstructorassignedparticipantstoreadthroughthepassageandendeavoredtounderstandthewholepassage.Afterthat,studentswererequiredtoanswerthefollowinglistedquestionswhichweredesignatedtoelicitthetargetform.Ifanyerrorsweremadeanddetectedintermsofthetargetstructure,thetwogroupsinvolvedgaineddifferenttypesoffeedbackfromtheteacher,theEGreceivedscaffoldedfeedbackfromtheinstructorwhiletheCGgotrecasttocorrectandrevisetheirerrors.Inthesecondperiodofinstruction,firstly,theteacherofferedallthestudentsapassagecontainingmanytargetstructures.Secondly,participantswererequiredtoreaditsamplequicklyaspossible.Afterthat,theinstructorassignedstudentsto30 retellingthemaincontentsofthewholestorywithouthavingtolookatthescripts,buttheteacherwrotedownsomemainverbsontheblackboard.Inthethirdperiodofinstruction,firstly,theinstructorreadoutashortpassagetothewholeclass.Secondly,theinstructoraskedthestudentstohaveadictationofwhattheyhadheard.Thirdly,thestudentsgatheredtogetheringroupoffiveorsixtocombinetheinformationtogethertomakeupasimilarpassageoftheformeroneandlastlyonestudentfromeachgroupmadeapresentationinfrontofthewholeclass.Inthefourthperiodofinstruction,firstly,studentswereurgedtolookatthegivensixpicturescarefully,whichwereadaptedfromthefamouscartoonfilmTomandJerrytoarousetheirinterest.Afterwards,theteacheraskedalltheparticipantstoretellthestorybasedonthegivenkeywords,andrequiredthemtogivetheirreports.Also,iftheyfailedtoelicitthecorrecttargetform,tosomeextent,theteacherelectedtogivetheparticipantsthetwodifferentkindsoffeedbackpresentationmethods.Thefollowingsuppliestwoexampleofhowparticipantsreceivedscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastseparately:Example1:Recast1)Instructor:WhywasTomsohappy?2)Participant:BecausehethoughtJerrykilledbyhim.3)Instructor:waskilled.4)Participant:waskilled.Example2:ScaffoldedFeedback1)Instructor:WhywasTomsohappy?2)Participant:BecausehethoughtJerrykilledbyhim.3)Instructor:Pardon?4)Participant:BecausehethoughtJerrykilledbyhim.5)Instructor:No,doyousenseanythingwrongwiththeverb“killed”?6)Participant:Kills.7)Instructor:Paymoreattentiontothehint“by”.Forexample,wesay:“TheblackboardwascleanedbyMissVivian”.8)Participant:BecausehethoughtJerrywaskilledbyhim.31 3.5DataCollectionandDataAnalysisItisessentialandurgenttoelaborateonthedataaccumulatedfromtheabovevariousquestionnairesandtestsforthesakeofexploringtheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonthelearningofEnglishpassivevoice.Firstofall,duringtheentireexperiment,participantswereassignedtofilloutabackgroundquestionnaire,andthenallthequestionnairepapersheetswerecarefullygatheredandaccumulatedaswellaswentthroughcarefullybytheresearcherinordertofigureoutwhetherthereexistedanycaseswhichwerenotsuitablefortheexperimentorifcertainparticipantsleftoutsomequestionstobeanswered.Thisquestionnairewasalsodesignedtohelptheresearchertoobtainamorecomprehensivepictureoftheresults.Aftertheelaborativeandseriouscheckoftheentirequestionnairedata,allthesubjectsinvolvedwerequalifiedtotakepartinthetests.Secondly,followingthequestionnairesectionwasthepre-test.Everyparticipanthadthepre-test,andthetestinstrumentwasaGJTwithtwoquestiontypes,eachofwhichconsistedof20grammaritems.Afterwards,allthetestpapersweregatheredtogetherandcheckedthoroughlybytheresearcher.Marksofthepaperswereretainedsoasto,ontheonehand,teststudents’currentlevelandknowledgeonpassivevoice,ontheotherhand,comparethetestresultswiththecomingpost-testmarkstoseeiftheyhadmakeanyprogressafterthetreatmentsessions.Lastly,participantswererandomlyassignedtotwogroups,oneCGandoneEG.InWeek2toWeek3，theywerereceivingfourperiodsofinstructionintermsofthetargetstructureandwhenevertheyhadcommittedanerror,theywouldgetthetwodifferentfeedbackpresentationwaysfromtheinstructor.Oneweeklater,inWeek4，apost-testwasconductedtoexaminestudents’languageproficiencyonpassivevoicecomparedwiththetestscoresofthepre-test.Despitethefactthattheentireresearch,fromtheinitialbackgroundquestionnairetothepost-test,lastedforfourweeks,datacollectionandanalysisonthe32 questionnaireandthetwotestscannotbefullycompletedandfinishedinsuchashorttime.Inordertoobtainmorevalidandholisticanalysisofthedata,theentireprocesstocollectandanalyzedatatookmorethansixweeks.Astothedataanalysisofthestudy,SPSS16.0isadoptedsoastomakeitmorescientificandconvincing.Differentresearchanalysismeansareappliedandrequiredtotestthetwodifferentresearchquestionsandbothquantitativeandqualitativeanalysiswereinvolvedintheprocess.Thefollowingpresentselaborateddescriptionsofthedata.Inordertotestthefirstresearchquestion,theeffectivenessofscaffoldedfeedback,thedescriptivestatisticsandanindependentsamplet-testaswellasapairedsamplet-testareusedtomeasurethegeneraleffect.Firstofall,anindependentsamplet-testwasutilizedbeforethewholeexplorationsoastoexamineifthereexistedanydifferencesonlanguageproficiencybetweenthetwochosenclassestomakethefollowingexperimentrunsmoothly.Secondly,thedescriptivestatisticsincludingthemeanandstandarddeviationofthepre-testandthepost-testaredisplayedtoexplaintheprogressandimprovementoftheEGinthepost-test.Thirdly,twopairedsamplet-testswereutilizedtocomparetheresultsbetweenthepre-testandthepost-testtoshowtheeffectivenessofscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastseparately.Inresponsetothesecondresearchquestion,thedifferentialeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastonstudentswithtwodifferentlanguagelevels,ontheonehand,similarlytotheresearchquestionone,anindependentsamplet-testwasutilizedaheadoftimetoguaranteetherewerenosignificantdifferencesonthescoresofstudentswithdifferentlanguagelevels.Ontheotherhand,acomparisonofdescriptivestatisticsbetweenpre-testandpost-testaswellasatwo-wayANOVAwereemployed.33 ChapterFourResultsandDiscussionThischapterchieflydealswiththeresultsanddiscussionsofthetwotests,thepre-testandthepost-testinordertotackletheresearchquestionsputforwardinChapterThree,followedbyadetaileddiscussionanalysisinthelightoftheresearchoutcomes.Thetworesearchquestionstoberesolvedinthischapteraredemonstratedinthefollowingway:1)Dostudentsbenefitmorefromreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackthanfromreceivingrecastontheirdevelopmentofpassivevoicelearning?Ifso,whataretheeffects?2)Arethereanydifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast?4.1ResultsoftheStudy4.1.1ResultsofGeneralEffectsofScaffoldedFeedbackThefollowinganalysisispresentedanddescribedinordertosettlethefirstresearchquestion:“Dostudentsbenefitmorefromreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackthanfromreceivingrecastontheirdevelopmentofpassivevoicelearning?Ifso,whataretheeffects?”Firstofall,anindependentsamplet-testwasimplementedpriortothetestsoastoobserveifthereexistedanyvitaldifferencesconcerninglanguageproficiencyinthetwochosengroups.Onlyunderthecircumstancethatnosignificantdifferencesweredetected,canthisstudybeprecededforward.34 Table4.1Students’EnglishProficiencyinthePre-testGroupnMSDtpEG5773.0416.78CG5772.4016.78.201.841(EG=ExperimentalGroup,CG=ControlGroup)Theabovetablecomparesstudents’EnglishproficiencybetweenEGandCGaheadofthetest.Inspectionsofthetwogroups’meansdisplaythat,ontheonehand,thetotalnumberofeachgroupis57respectively,ontheotherhand,theaveragescoreofstudentsinEGis73.04and72.40forCG.ThestatisticsaccumulatedrevealthatstudentsfromtheEGandCGshareparallelcompetenceinEnglishlearningpriortotheexperiment.Moreover,thedata(t=.201,p=0.841>0.05)showsthereexistednosignificantdifferencesinEnglishproficiencybetweenparticipantsreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandstudentsreceivingrecast.Secondly,inanefforttomeasurethescoresoftheEGandCGintermsofEnglishpassivevoicelearning,anindependentsamplet-testwasemployedinthepre-test.ThedataoutcomesaredemonstratedinTable4.2.Aswecansee,themeanscoresofthetwogroupsare63.53and66.07,revealingthatstudentsinvolvedintheEGandCGpossessastatisticallysimilarcomprehensionofthetargetstructure,passivevoice.Furthermore,despitethefactthatparticipantsalreadyobtainedcertainpriorknowledgeofthetargetformpriortothetreatmentsessions,basedontheircurrentscoresandlanguagelevels,muchmoreeffortandinstructionswererequisitetointensifyparticipants’knowledgeandunderstandingonthepassivevoice.Moreover,outcomeofthelevene’stestforequalityofvariance(p=0.648>0.05)indicatesthattheEGandCGwereequallyhomogeneousinthepre-testandthatthefollowingexperimentswerefeasible.35 Table4.2ComparisonofPre-testScoresGroupnMSDtpEG5763.5321.66CG5766.0721.16-.458.648Thirdly,inordertoascertainwhetherstudentshadmadeanyprogressafterthetotalexperimentwithinthesamegroupandbetweenthegroups,onemoreindependentsamplet-testsandtwopairedsamplet-testswerecarriedout.ThedescriptivestatisticanalysisoftheEGinthepre-testandpost-testarelistedinTable4.3.ThemeanscoreofEGascendedfrom63.53inthepre-testto80.17inthepost-test,whichindicatedovertlythatscaffoldedfeedbackhadsignificanteffectsonlearners.Thepairedsamplet-testfortheEGpresentedinTable4.3showedthattherewasasignificantdifferenceonstudents’scoresbetweenthepre-testandthepost-test(p=0.000<0.05).Thetvalue(t=-7.401)denotedstatisticallysignificantdifferenceswhichpointedtoap=.000levelofpossibility.Table4.3ComparisonofPre-testandPost-testScoresPre-testPost-testGrouptpMSDMSDEG63.5321.6680.1712.36-7.40.000***CG66.0721.1671.7319.03-5.82.000***Note:***p<.001Likewise,Table4.3alsolistedthedescriptivestatisticanalysisoftheCGonthepre-testandpost-test.Statisticsshowedthatparticipantshadachievedenormousprogressafterthetreatmentsessions.Thepairedsamplet-testfortheCG(seetable36 4.3)showedthattherewasasignificantdifferenceonstudents’scoresfromthepre-testtothepost-test(p=0.000<0.001).Lastly,Table4.4displaystherelativeeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastontheEGandCGinthepost-test.Thedescriptivestatisticofthetwogroupsinthepost-testrevealsthatthemeanscoreofEGwasmuchhigherthanthescoresoftheCG,whichpresumedtheprofitableimpactofscaffoldedfeedbackonlearners’understandingandcomprehensionofpassivevoice.Theindependentsamplet-testinthepost-testrevealedthatthereexistedsomedifferencesbetweenthetwofeedbacktypes,scaffoldedfeedbackandrecastonthelearningofpassivevoice(p=0.046<0.05).Table4.4ComparisonofPost-testScoresGroupnMSDtpEG5780.1712.36CG5771.7319.032.035.046*Note:*p<.05Inaccordancewiththeaboveanalysis,thefirstresearchquestionthatwhetherstudentsreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackbenefitedalotmorethanfromrecastontheirdevelopmentofpassivevoicelearningcanberesolved.StatisticsrevealedthatbothscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastcontributedtoEnglishpassivevoicelearningyetscaffoldedfeedbackgroupoutperformedrecastgroupafterthetreatment,whichindicatedtheadvantageousbenefitsofscaffoldedfeedbackoverrecast.4.1.2ResultsofEffectsofDifferentFeedbackTypesandLanguageLevelsInordertorespondtothesecondresearchquestion:”Arethereanydifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast?”,twoindependentsamplet-testsandatwo-wayANOVAwereconductedinpropersequence.Ontheonehand,twoindependentsamplet-testswereadoptedpriortothetestin37 ordertoexamineifthereexistedanysignificantdifferencesintermsoflanguageproficiencyonstudentswithdifferentlanguagelevelsbetweenthetwochosengroups.Onlywhennosignificantdifferenceswerefoundcantheexperimentoneffectsofdifferentfeedbacktypesonlanguagelevelsbeprecededsolidandmeaningful.AscanbeseenfromTable4.5,themeanscoresofhigh-levelstudentsbetweentheEGandCGwere89.73and89.47respectively.Levene’stestforequalityofvariance(p=0.798>0.05forthehigh-levelstudentsandp=0.903>0.05forthelow-levelstudents)indicatedthatthetherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenbothhigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsintheEGandCGrespectively,whichdemonstratedthatthefollowingtwo-wayANOVAwasvalid.Table4.5ComparisonofLanguageLevelsinthePre-testLevelGroupnMSDtpHighEG1589.732.66CG1589.472.97.259.798LowEG15498.53CG1548.69.26.123.903Onetheotherhand,atwo-wayANOVAwascarriedouttotestifytherelationshipbetweendifferentfeedbacktypesandlanguagelevels.Ascanbeseenfromthefollowingtable,thetotalnumberofdifferentlanguagelevelstudentsforthetwogroupswere15respectively,andforscaffoldedfeedbackgroup,themeanscoresofthehigh-levelstudentsandlow-levelstudentswere90.67and69.67respectivelyafterthetest.Forrecastgroup,themeanscoresofthehigh-levelstudentsandlow-levelstudentswere88.40and55.07respectivelyafterthetest.Andthestandarddeviation(SD)dataonhigh-levelstudentsandlow-levelstudentsfromboththescaffoldedfeedbackgroupandtherecastgroupshowedthatthescoresweremuchmorescatteredintermsoflow-levelstudentsintherecastgroup.38 Table4.6ComparisonofScoresbetweenDifferentLanguageLevelsFeedbackLanguageMSDnTypelevelScaffoldedHigh90.673.95815feedbacklow69.678.03315RecastHigh88.405.11015Low55.0711.35415Inordertotesthowfeedbacktypesandlanguagelevelsmutuallyaffectthescoresofparticipants,theinteractionbetween-subjectswereexploredwithstudents’scoresasthedependantvariableanddifferentfeedbacktypeaswellaslanguagelevelastheindependentvariables.Aslistedintable4.7,therewasasignificantdifferentfeedbacktypeandlanguagelevelinteraction(sig.=0.003<0.05)Also,concerningtotheseparateeffects,differentfeedbacktypes(sig.=0.000<0.001)andlanguagelevels(sig.=0.000<0.001)hadsomesignificantinfluenceonstudents’performanceseparately.Table4.7Testsofbetween-SubjectsEffectSourcedfMSFSig.FeedbackType11066.81718.141.000***LanguageLevel111070.417188.25.000***FeedbackType×1570.4179.700.003**LanguageLevelNote:***p<.001,**p<.01Meanwhile,onthebasisofthedataanalysis,forstudentswithhighlevels,boththetwofeedbacktypeshadsomemaineffectsonstudents’passivevoicelearning,butthosewhoreceivedscaffoldedfeedbackgainedslightlymoreprogressthanstudentsreceivingrecast.Meanwhile,studentsoflowlevelsexcelledtheirpriorlearningin39 bothofthetwogroups.However,thedataprogrammedbytheSPSS16.0revealedthatthescoresoflow-levelstudentsreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackweremuchhigherthanparticipantsreceivingrecastandthereexistedasignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoinvolved.Fromtheaboveanalysis,thesecondresearchquestionwhethertherewasanydifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastcanbetackled.Statisticsshowedthatbothscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastcontributedtostudentswithhigh-levelsandlow-levels.Statisticsalsoindictedthatintermsofstudentswithhigh-levels,bothfeedbacktypessharedasimilarlyeffect,butscaffoldedfeedbackgaverisetobetterpassivevoicelearningasconcernedwithlow-levelstudents.4.2DiscussionsoftheStudyThefollowingsectionintendstoprovideadetailedanalysisontheresultsofthepresentstudyinrelationtoeachresearchquestion.Ontheonehand,thegeneraleffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackandrecastareexplainedandsummarizedonthelearningofEnglishpassivevoice.Ontheotherhand,thedifferentialeffectsofvariousfeedbacktypesonstudents’languagelevelsareelaboratedon.4.2.1GeneralEffectsofScaffoldedFeedbackandRecastHypothesisOnepredictedthatstudentsreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackbenefitalotmorethanfromrecastontheirdevelopmentofpassivevoicelearning,whichpromotestohigherlevelofprogression.Inaccordancetotheresearchdataanalysis,andoutcomesofthebetween-groupcomparisonsinthepost-test,wecansafelydrawtheconclusionthatscaffoldedfeedbackgaverisetobetterpassivevoicelearningandthefindingssuppliedevidenceforthebeneficialeffectsofscaffoldedfeedback.Thereasonsaccountingforthedataoutcomesaredemonstratedasfollows:Ontheonehand,scaffoldedfeedback,inlightofthesocioculturalperspective,requireslearnersandinstructorstoreachconsensusthroughconsultationofmeaning,40 ofwhichrevisedutterancesandincrementalfocusonthetargetgrammaticalitemsareinvolved.Atthesametime,scaffoldedfeedbackmakesitpossibletoacceleratestudents’proficiencyontheirL2learningthroughvariouspresentingwaysofpositiveandnegativefeedback,whicharebelievedtobesignificantlyinfluentialtothedevelopmentofstudents’SLA.AsHarmer(2000)claimed,everystudentmakesmistakesatcertainstagesoflanguagelearning,andthecommittedmistakesserveasnaturalandbeneficialwaysoflearningoccurrence.Onlybyfiguringoutthereasonswhytheyhavecommittedtheerrorsandinwhatwayscanstudentsbeabletobenefitmorefromthemandlearnmoreaboutthelanguageitself.Scaffoldedfeedbackandrecastbothhavearoletoplaytohelpstudentsclarifytheircomprehensionofthetargetlanguagestructureandtheconstructionofthetargetlanguage,buttheabovetwofeedbackpresentingwaysdifferfromeachotherinthefollowingaspects:scaffoldedfeedbackentailsthenegotiationofboththelearnerandtheteachersoastohelpstudentstoself-generatethecorrectanswers,andthelengthoftimedurationforthewholeinstructionalprocessdependsgreatlyonhowmuchguidancethelearnerneeds,andbasedonthelearner’scurrentlanguageproficiency,differentamountofhelpisrequired.Astotheotherfeedbackpresentingtyperecast,probablyasthemostcommonformofconventionalfeedbacktype,itreformulatesanill-formedutteranceanddrawsstudents’fullattentiontospecifictargetstructuresduringinstructionswithouthavingtoimpingeoncommunication.Duringtheteachingprocess,theteacherinvolvedpresentsthecorrectanswerstothestudents’erroneousutterances.Meanwhile,owingtothefactthatthereisnoneedforstudentstoself-generatethecorrectresponses,thelengthoftimedurationintermsofrecastforteacherinstructionismuchlessthanforscaffoldedfeedback.Ontheotherhand,scaffoldedfeedbackoffersstudentsassistedhelpwithinthelearners’ZPD,whichisconducivetoassistingstudentstomovefromother-regulationtoself-regulation.Onceself-regulationisachieved,studentsaremorelikelytohavethetendencytobeabletointernalizethecorrecttargetstructures.Scaffoldedfeedback,asonereasontoberesponsiblefortheregulationtobeachieved,isbelievedtohelp41 students’internalization.Furthermore,bysupplyingassistancewithinthelearners’ZPD,scaffoldedfeedback,tosomeextent,helpstoweakenthecontradictorydistractionsresultedfromindividuallearnerdifferencesthatmayunderratetheeffectivenessofCF.Also,scaffoldedfeedbackisprovidedinawaythatsatisfiesstudents’cognitiveandsocialneedsatthesametime.So,inrealpedagogicalsettings,teachersshouldnotonlybecenteredonthelinguisticinputbutalsolaysignificantattentiontosociallymediatingfactorssuchasstudents’eagernessandmotivationtowardstheexperimentsessions.4.2.2GeneralEffectsofDifferentFeedbackTypesandLanguageLevelsHypothesisTwoassertedthattherearesomedifferentialeffectsonlearningpassivevoiceamonghigh-levelandlow-levelstudentsafterreceivingscaffoldedfeedbackandrecast.Inrespondtothishypothesis,theindependentsamplet-testandatwo-wayANOVAwerecarriedout.Basedontheaboveresearchoutcomes,weknowthatboththetwofeedbacktypesareconducivetostudentswithhigh-levelsandlow-levels.However,theaccumulateddataforscaffoldedfeedbackdifferfromtherecastgroupintermsofstudents’differentlanguagelevels,tobemorespecific,scaffoldedfeedbackoutperformsrecastasconcernedwithlow-levelstudents.Reasonsaccountingforthedifferentialeffectsareelaboratedonasfollows:Ontheonehand,scaffoldedfeedbackguidesteachersintheirdifferentchoicesoffeedbackstrategiesbasedonstudents’needsandpotentialcapabilities.Asisknowntoall,differentstudentsmaybeonvariouslanguagedevelopmentstagesandtheysharedisparatelearningstylesandfoundations.So,similarly,differentfeedbackpresentingwayswillbeelectedowingtostudents’differentlanguagelevels.Whatissuitableforonestudentmaynotfunctionwellforanother(Richard&Rogers,1986).Furthermore,teachers’behaviorintheinstructionalsettingisnotonlyinfluencedbytheteachers’personalpreferencesonvariousteachingmethodsbutalsohassomethingtodowithlearners’languagelevels.AccordingtoWilliams(2001),high-levellanguagelearnersaremorelikelytotransferthelanguageinputtoalong-termmemorywhilethelow-levelstudentsarelessabletointernalizethenewinput.Thisisduetothatlearner’sproficiencyinfluencestheirabilitytounderstandteachers’feedbackand42 locatetheerrorsthatareattendedto(Philip,2003).Asregardtostudentswithlowlevels,simplerandevenmorestraightforwardquestionsarepreferablefromteachers,whichcontributetothelow-levelEnglishlearnerstoobtainconfidenceandencouragementforfurtherstudies.However,asforhigh-levelEnglishlearners,owingtothefactthattheyalreadyhaveasolidfoundationofthetargetlanguageandtheytendtobemoresensitivetolanguagelearning,instructorsoughttopaymoreattentiontolanguagecomprehensionandabilitiesofdivergentthinking.Ontheotherhand,ashasmentionedpreviously,recastisconstantlyregardedasanimplicittypeofCF,foritcorrectsandreformulatesstudents’erroneousutteranceswithouthavingtopointouttothelearnerthatanerrorhasbeencommittedorthattheerrorisinadirectandexplicitway.Takenthiscircumstanceandotherfactorsintofullconsideration,somelearnersmayfailtoperceiverecastascorrective.Egi(2010)claimedthatstudentsmayhavedifficultiesinperceivingthecorrectivefocusofrecastinthetreatmentsessionsbutmaybeabletofigureitoutaftertheirerroneousresponseshavebeenmodified.Meanwhile,PanovaandLyster(2002)foundthatlow-levelstudentsmayfailtobenefitfromrecastforthesimilarreasonspresentedabove.So,itisrecommendedthatteachersshouldintegraterecastwithotherdifferentfeedbackpresentingtypestoenhancestudents’languagelearningabilities.43 ChapterFiveConclusionThischapterservesastheconclusionsectionofthecurrentstudy,ofwhichmajorfindingsandcontributions,pedagogicalimplicationsandlimitationsaswellassuggestionsforfurtherresearchareelaboratedonseparatelyasfollows.5.1MajorFindingsThepresentstudyistoexamine,tobemorespecific,ontheonehand,whetherscaffoldedfeedbackcontributestothelearningofEnglishpassivevoice,ontheotherhand,whetherdifferentfeedbacktypeshavedifferentialeffectsonstudentswithdifferentlanguagelevels.Onthebasisoftheaboveobjectives,tworesearchquestionsarerespondedinChapterFour.Thispartismainlyconcernedwiththemajorfindingsofthepresentstudy:1)Scaffoldedfeedbackismoreconducivetolearners’learningofEnglishpassivevoice.ThecurrentresearchontheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackhasgivensomeinsightsintoSLAdevelopment.Simultaneously,inlinewiththestatisticanalysisinChapterFour,despitethefactthatboththetwodifferentfeedbackpresentationmethodscontributetostudents’learningofthetargetstructure,statisticsshowthatstudentsfromtheexperimentalgrouphavethetendencytooutperformthecontrolgroupinthepost-testGJTscores,whichshowsthatscaffoldedfeedbackprovestobeaneffectivewaytoassiststudentsinlearninggrammar.Meanwhile,basedonthepositiverolesofscaffoldedfeedbackandlimitationsonpriorstudiesintermsofconventionalfeedbacktypes,scaffoldedfeedbackcanbeutilizedforteachersinChineseEFLsettingstointeractwithstudentsandaccommodatetheirneedscorrespondingly.2)Differentfeedbacktypeshavedifferentialimpactsonstudentswithdisparatelanguagelevels.Toputitinasimpleway,asregardtohigh-levelstudents,both44 scaffoldedfeedbackandrecastcontributetotheirpassivevoicelearningsimilarly.However,scaffoldedfeedbacksignificantlyoutperformedrecastforstudentswithlow-levellanguageproficiency.Asisknowntoall,oneofthetroublesomeobstaclesnowadaysteachersconfrontinrealclassroomsettingisonhowtobalancetheclassroomteachingandtailordifferentstudents’needsduetotheirdifferentlevelsoflanguageproficiency.ThisstudyendeavorstoconveysomeinformationtoteachersthatacertainsinglewayofteachingmaynotbeappropriateforallstudentsinthesameclassanditintendstopresentsomealternativesforEnglishteaching.5.2PedagogicalImplicationsThepresentstudyverifiestheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonthedevelopmentofEnglishpassivevoicelearning,whichsuppliessomeimplicationsforforeignlanguageteachingandlearning.Thefollowingpartisdesignatedtoillustrateitsimplicationsfromthreeaspects,tobeginwiththepedagogicalrequirements,followedbyclassroomorganizationandconcludeswithcurriculumdesign.Firstofall,asregardtopedagogicalrequirements,it’sessentialfortheinstructorstopresentscaffoldedfeedbackimmediatelyandinaproperwayduringtheteachingprocessorinstructionsinordertoleaveparticipantsenoughtimetoself-generatethecorrectanswer,whichassistsstudentstoreachahigherleveloflanguageproficiency.Also,inordertodevelopafeasibleandpracticalactivityintermsofgrammaticalstructurepractice,tasksthatentailclear-cutteachingaimsandspecificdrillsareoughttobetakenintofullconsideration.Meanwhile,thefeasibleactivityinrealsituationshouldbecenteredonsustainingandhelpingstudentstocreateacceptableutterances.Furthermore,teachersshouldpaymoreattentiontothequestionsonhowtosupplyassistanceandinwhatwayitshouldbelikeaswellaswheretoofferhelpinajointendeavor.Secondly,anotherimplicationisconcernedwiththecurriculumdesign.Itishighlyadvocatedthat,inordertomakethebestuseofscaffoldedfeedbackandto45 exploreitsbeneficialeffects,organizedandenduringcurriculumdesignshouldbepresentedforthetargetstudents.Thescafoldedfeedbackprovidedbytheinstructorshouldfollowanaccordantandcenteredmanner,whichismorepreferabletotailorstudents’differentneedstomakethemfullycomprehend.Moreover,it’smoredesirabletodevisetasksthatemphasizeonthesamelinguisticfeaturesforaconsistentperiodoftimeforclassroominteraction,whichmakesitpossibleforstudentstoexperienceadeepercognitiveprocess.Lastly,thisimplicationisconcernedwithclassroomorganization.Tofullyachievetheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedback,wehavetoensureasmallclasssizetoenabletheteacher’sattentionispaidtoeverysinglestudentduringthescaffoldedfeedbacksessionsviceversa.Onlyinthisway,canstudents’motivationoflearningbeaccelerated.5.3LimitationsandSuggestionsforFutureStudyThisstudyprobesintotheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonstudents’learningofpassivevoiceinanEFLsetting.Duetothelimitationsthatfewstudiesarecarriedoutathomeandinthelightofprecedingresearchesabroad,thewriteraddsstudents’differentlanguagelevelstothestudy.Despiteitsmeritsandcontributions,somelimitationsareinevitable.Thefollowingpartpresentsthegenerallimitationsofthepresentstudyandofferssomefeasibleandpracticalsuggestionsforfuturestudies.Firstly,thetimeofdurationfortheentireexperiment,fromthebackgroundquestionnaireaccumulationstagetothefinaldatacollectionandanalysisstage,isonlyforjustaboutsixweeks.Thecomparativelyshortperiodsoftimemakesitdifficulttoensurepersistentanddurableeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonlearningpassivevoiceaswellaslearningothergrammaticalstructures.Inshort,theresearchoutcomesinthisstudymaybetransitoryandrelative,moreempiricalevidencesareneededtoprovideamorecomprehensiveunderstandingofscaffoldedfeedback.Secondly,thepresentstudyonlytakesEnglishpassivevoiceasanexampleto46 exploretheeffectsofscaffoldedfeedbackonseniorhighschoollearners.Itseffectsonothergrammaticalitemsareyettobefurtherdiscussed.Moreover,Englishpassivevoiceisnotabrand-newgrammaticalstructurefortheparticipantsinthestudy,inspiteoftheircurrentknowledgeofthetargetformisratherlimited.Also,thepresentstudyonlymakesacomparisonbetweenscaffoldedfeedbackinlightofsocioculturalperspectivewithrecastinlightofcognitiveperspective,morestudiesandreplicationsareneeded.Finally,thesamplesizeinthepresentstudyisrelativelysmall,thatis,eachlanguageleveliscomposedof15participants.Meanwhile,thestudyignoressomeimportantfactorsthatmayhaveaneffectonthefinalfindings,suchasgendersandanxiety,learnerpreferenceanddifference,motivationandattitudes.Infuturestudies,largersamplesizesaremuchmorepreferredtoproducemoreconvincingandreliablefindings,atthesametime,morelearnerfactorsarerequiredtobetakenintoconsiderationtopresentamoreholisticanalysisofscaffoldedfeedbackandSLA.47 ReferencesAljaafreh,A.&Lantolf,J,P.(1994).Negativefeedbackasregulationandsecondlanguagelearninginthezoneofproximaldevelopment.TheModernLanguageJournal,78,465-483Althobaiti,N.(2014).Correctivefeedback:abridgebetweencognitiveinteractionistandsocialinteractionistperspectives.AmericanJournalofEducationalResearch,2,950-954Ammar,A.(2008).Promptsandrecasts:differentialeffectsonsecondlanguagemorphosyntax.LanguageTeachingResearch,12,183-210Ammar,A.,&Spada,N.(2006).Onesizefitall?Recasts,prompts,andL2Learning.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,28,543-574Block,D.(2003).Thesocialturninsecondlanguageacquisition.Edinburgh,UK:EdinburghUniversityPress.Brown,H.D.(1994a).Principlesoflanguagelearningandteaching(4thedition).London:LongmanBrown,H.D.TeachingbyPrinciples:AnInteractiveApproachtoLanguagePedagogy[M].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001:364.ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2001:364.Bransford,J.D.,Brown,A.L.,&Cocking,R.R.(2000).Howpeoplelearn:Brain,mind,experience,andschool(expandeded.).Washington,DC:NationalAcademiesPress.Braidi,M,S(2002).Reexaminingtheroleofrecastsinnative-speaker/nonnative-speakerinteractions.LanguageLearning52,1-42Chomsky,N.AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax[M].Amenrica:MITPress,1965.Dilans,G.(2010).CorrectivefeedbackandL2vocabularydevelopment:PromptsandrecastsintheadultESLclassroom.TheCanadianModernLanguageReview,66,787-851Donato,R.(1994).Collectivescaffoldinginsecondlanguagelearning.InJ.LantolfandF.Appel(eds.),VygoskianApproachestoSecondLanguageLearningResearchNorwood,NJ:Ablex,33-56Donato,R.(2000).Socialculturalcontributionstounderstandingtheforeignandsecondlanguageclassroom.InJ.Lantolf(ed.),SocioculturalTheoryandSecondLanguageLearning.Oxford:48 OxfordUniversityPress,27-50Ellis,R.(2006).Currentissuesintheteachingofgrammar:AnSLAperspective.TESOLQUARTERLY,40,83-107Ellis,R.(2009).Correctivefeedbackandteacherdevelopment.L2Journal,1,3-18Ellis,R.(2010).Epilogue:Aframeworkforinvestigatingoralandwrittencorrectivefeedback.StudiedinSecondLanguageAcquisition,32,335-349Ellis,R.,&Sheen,Y.(2006).Reexaminingtheroleofrecastsinsecondlanguageacquisition.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,28,575-600.Finn,B.,&Metcalfe.J.(2010).Scaffoldingfeedbacktomaximizelong-termerrorcorrection.Memory&Cognition38:951-961Han,Z.(2002).AstudyoftheimpactofrecastsontenseconsistencyinL2output.TESOLQuarterly,36,543-572Hartman,H.(2002).Humanlearningandinstruction.NewYork:CityCollegeofCityUniversityofNewYork.Hinkel,E.&Fotos,S.(2002).Fromtheorytopractice:Ateacher’sview.InE.Hinkel&S.Fotos(eds).Newperspectivesongrammarteachinginsecondlanguageclassrooms.(1-12)Mahwah,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.Ishida,M.(2004).Effectsofrecastsontheacquisitionoftheaspectualformof–tei(ru)bylearnersofJapaneseasaforeignlanguage.LanguageLearning,54，311-394Johnson,M.(2004).Aphilosophyofsecondlanguageacquisition.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.Larsen-Freenman,D.(1991)TeachingGrammar.InM.Celce-Murcia(Ed.)TeachingEnglishasaSecondorForeignLanguage(2nded.,pp279-295).Boston:HeinleandHeinle.Larsen-Freenman,D.(2007).Reflectingonthecognitive-socialdebateinsecondlanguageacquisition.TheModernJournal,5,773-787Lantolf,J.P.&Thorne,S.L.(2006).SocialculturaltheoryandthegenesisofL2development.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPressLantolf,J.P.,&Appel,G.(eds.)(1994).Vygotskianapproachestosecondlanguagelearningresearch,Norwood,NJ:Ablex.Leech,G.EnglishGrammarforToday[M].England:TheMacmillanPressinConjunction49 withtheEnglishAssociation,1982.Leeman,J.(2003).RecastandL1development:Beyondnegativeevidence.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,25,37-63LiShaofeng(2010).TheeffectivenessofcorrectivefeedbackinSLA:Ameta-analysis.LanguageLearning,60,309-365Loewen,S.&Philp,J.(2006).RecastsintheadultEnglishL2classroom:Characteristics,explicitness,andeffectiveness.TheModernLanguageJournal,90,536-556Long,M.(1988).Instructedinterlanguagedevelopment.InBeebee,L.M.(ed).IssuesinSecondLanguageAcquisition:Multipleperspectives(pp.115-141).NewYork;London:NewburryHouse.Long,M.H.(2007).ProblemsinSLA.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Long,M.H.&Robinson,P.(1998).TheroleofimplicitnegativefeedbackinSLA:modelsandrecastsinJapaneseandSpanish.TheModernLanguageJournal,82(3),357-371.Lyster,R.(1998).Negotiationofform,recastsandexplicitcorrectioninrelationtoerrortypesandlearnerrepairinimmersionclassrooms.LanguageLearning,48,183-218Lyster,R.,&Izquierdo,J.,(2009).Promptsversusrecastsindyadicinteraction.LanguageLearning,59,453-498Lyster,R&Ranta,L(1997).CorrectiveFeedbackandLearnerUptake.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition19:37-66Mackey,A.(2006).Feedback,noticingandinstructedsecondlanguagelearning.AppliedLinguistics,27,405-430Mackey,A,&.,Al-Khalil,M.,&Atanassova,G.,&Hama,M.,&Logan-Terry,A.,&Nakatsukasa,K.,(2007).Teachers’intentionsandlearners’perceptionsaboutcorrectivefeedbackintheL2classroom.InnovationinLanguageLearningandTeaching,1,129-152Mackey,A.,Gass,S.&McDonoughK.(2000).Howdolearnersperceiveinteractionalfeedback?StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,22,471-497.Nassaji,H.,&Swain.(2000).AvygotskianperspectiveoncorrectivefeedbackinL2:TheeffectofrandomversusnegotiatedhelponthelearningofEnglisharticles.LanguageAwareness,9,34-51Nassaji,H.(2009).Effectsofrecastsandelicitationsindyadicinteractionandtheroleoffeedback50 Explicitness.LanguageLearning,59,411-452Ohata,A,S.(2000).RethinkinginteractioninSLA:DevelopmentallyappropriateassistanceinthezoneofproximaldevelopmentandtheacquisitionofL2grammar.InJ.P.Lantolf(ed.),SocioculturalTheoryandSecondLanguageLearningOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,51-78Oliver,R.,&Mackey,A.(2003).InternationalcontextandfeedbackinchildESLclassrooms.TheModernLanguageJournal,87,519-533Rassaei,E.(2014).Scaffoldedfeedback,recastsandL2development:Asocialculturalperspective.TheModernLanguageJournal,98,417-431Rassaei,E.,&Moinzadeh,A.(2014).Recasts,metalinguisticfeedback,andlearners’perceptions:AcaseofPersianEFLlearners.InnovationinLanguageLearningandTeaching,8,39-55Russell,V(2009).CorrectiveFeedback,overaDecadeofResearchSinceLysterandRanta(1997):WhereDoWeStandToday?ElectronicJournalofForeignLanguageTeaching,6,21-31Sheen,Y.(2004).Correctivefeedbackandlearneruptakeincommunicativeclassroomsacrossinstructionalsettings.LanguageTeachingResearch,8,263-300Sheen,Y.(2007).TheeffectsoffocusedwrittencorrectivefeedbackandlanguageaptitudeonESLlearner’sacquisitionofarticles.TESOLQuarterly,41,255-285Sheen,Y.(2008).Recasts,languageanxiety,modifiedoutput,andL2learning.LanguageLearning,58,835-874Tarone,E.(2000).Stillwrestlingwith“context”ininterlanguagetheory.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,20,56–61.Thornbury,S.(1999).Howtoteachgrammar.England:EdinburghLongmanPearsonEducationLimited,1999.Vygotsky,L,S.(1978).Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhigherpsychologicalprocesses.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Wood.&Bruner.&Ross.(1976).TheRoleofTutoringinProblemSolving.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,17,89-100.陈羡芬.(2007).高中英语语法教学策略.外语界(11),42-43顾珊珊,王同顺.(2008).负反馈、注意机制及修正后输出对英语问句习得发展的影响.外语教学与研究，40（4），270-278.51 胡壮麟.(2002).中国英语教学中的“低效”问题.国外外语教学(4),3-5何克抗.(1997).建构主义的教学模式、教学方法与教学设计.北京师范大学学报(5).74-81文秋芳.(2008).评析二语习得认知派与社会派20年的论战.中国外语.(3).11-20文秋芳.(2013).二语习得重点问题研究.外语教学与研究出版社.魏冉.(2015).纠错反馈和明示教学对英语学习者语用习得的影响.现代外语,(38),59-61王蔷.(2011).英语教学法教程.高等教育出版社.杨颖莉.(2013).反馈对不同语言水平学习者目标语发展作用的实证研究.外语教学,(34),59-62朱枫.(2005).大学英语支架式教学实证研究.《哈尔滨学院学报》.1,129-132.张国荣.(2004).支架理论在英语写作教学中的应用.外语与外语教学(2).97-9852 AppendixIBackgroundQuestionnaire问卷调查同学:你好!非常感谢你对本研究的参与和支持，此问卷的目的是为了了解你对本研究的看法。请如实填写相关信息，谢谢你的配合！姓名性别年龄1.你学习英语已有年。A.3年B.4-6年C.7-9年D.9年以上2.你喜欢学习英语吗？A.很喜欢B.较喜欢C.一般喜欢D.较不喜欢E.很不喜欢F.不知道3.你有过在其他国家学习英语的经历吗?A.有B.无4.你怎样评价你的英语整体能力？A.很好B.较好C.一般D.较差E.很差F.不知道5.你怎样评价你的英语语法学习？A.很好B.较好C.一般D.较差E.很差F.不知道6.你认为语法重要吗?A.很重要B.较重要C.一般D.较不重要E.很不重要F.不知道53 AppendixIITestPaperforPre-test姓名班级分数IJudgethefollowingsentences(theverbofthepredicate)ascorrectorincorrect,draw√intheblanksontherightifcorrectandunderlinetheincorrectpartandwriteitscorrectformintheblanksifincorrect.判断下列句子(谓语动词)是否正确，如果正确在右边的横线上画√，如果不正确在错误的部分下边画线并把改正后的正确部分写到右边横线上，每小题3分)。1.Hehasfoundhislostpenatlast.2.Thisfactorywasbuilttenyearsago.3.ThisnovelwaswrotebyMarkTwainin1950s.4.Ourlibrarybuiltthreeyearsago.5.TheywerewatchingTVwhentheirmotherarrived.6.Englishwasspokewidely(广泛)inChinain1990s.7.Thelostboywasfoundinanothercitybypolice.8.Ann’smothermadeabigcakeforherlastnight.9.Ihaven’tsawJimmyforquitealongtime.10.ThelightwasinventedbyEdison.11.Mylostpenwasfindinmydeskyesterday.12.Thiscupwasusedfor(用于)drinkingwinebyancient(古代)people.13.Johnhasnevergotoasupermarketalone.14.ThesecarsmadeinJapantenyearsago.15.ThePRC(中华人民共和国)wasfounded(成立)onOctober1,1949.16.Iwasreadaninterestingstoryat8:00lastnight.17.CoffeewasdiscoveredinAfricaalongtimeago.18.Thisroomwasuseforhavingmeetingatthattime.19.MyparentsstillsleepwhenIgotupthismorning.20.Jack’swalletfindoutsidethegardenlastMonday.54 II.Fillintheblankswiththeproperformofthegivenverbs.用所给动词的适当形式填空，每小题2分。1.Tom____________(live)heresince1990.2.Mybedroom______________(clean)bymomjustnow.3.Thisbook______________(write)byafamouswriterin1998.4.Myparents_____still_______(sleep)whenIgotupthismorning.5.Thismuseum(博物馆)______________(build)in1997.6.Jack’swallet____________(find)outsidethegardenbyHenrylastMonday.7.I____________(have)thisbikeforaboutfiveyears.8.Astory______________(tell)byGrannyyesterday.9.Anewbike______________(buy)bymyfatherformelastSunday.10.Myfather____________(read)newspaperwhilemymotherwaspreparingsupper.11.John______________(ask)toanswerthequestionbytheteacherinthemathclassthismorning.12.Myruler______________(borrow)byLiLeiyesterday.13.I_____just_______(finish)readingthatstory.14.Mr.Zhang____________(invite)tohavedinnerbyMr.Liyesterdayafternoon.15.Atest____________(give)byourEnglishteacherlastweek.16.Myparents____________(be)toShanghaitwice.17.Thesemachines______________(produce)(生产)inShanghaiin2002.18.Millionsoftrees______________(plant)onthathilllastyear.19.We______________(ask)tofinishalltheexercisesinthebookbythemathteacheryesterday.20.Kate____________(study)whiletheotherstudentswereplaying.55 AppendixIIITestPaperforPost-test姓名班级分数I.Judgethefollowingsentences(theverbofthepredicate)ascorrectorincorrect,draw√intheblanksontherightifcorrectandunderlinetheincorrectpartandwriteitscorrectformintheblanksifincorrect.判断下列句子(谓语动词)是否正确，如果正确在右边的横线上画√，如果不正确在错误的部分下边画线并把改正后的正确部分写到右边横线上，每小题3分)。1.TonymadeamistakeintheEnglishclassthismorning.2.Thismuseum(博物馆)wasbuilttwentyyearsago.3.Thelostcarwasfindatlastbylocalpolicelastweek.4.Wehavekneweachotherforquitealongtime.5.ThePLA(中国人民解放军)wasfounded(成立)onAugust1,1927.6.Thelostdogwasfoundonanoldstreet.7.Thepolicehavefoundthelostcaratlast.8.Thiscompanybuiltfiveyearsago.9.Thetelephonewasinvented(发明)byBell.10.Lilywasdoherhomeworkat9:00lastnight.11.Thestonewasusedforcuttingbyancientpeople.12.ThisletterwaswrotebyTomlastnight.13.Thestudentswerestilltalkingwhentheteachercamein.14.MyparentsstillsleepwhenIgotupthismorning.15.Thisstrangepenwasuseforwritingbyancientpeople.16.Mybrotherhasneverseethatinterestingfilm.17.TeawasdiscoveredinChinamanyyearsago.18.ThesebikesmadeinChinatwentyyearsago.19.Jack’swalletfindoutsidethegardenlastMonday.20.ChinesewasspokewidelyinAmericanin1990s.56 II.Fillintheblankswiththeproperformofthegivenverbs.用所给动词的适当形式填空，每小题2分。1.We_____just_______(take)anEnglishtest.2.Anewbag______________(buy)bymymotherformeyesterday.3.We______________(ask)tofinishalltheexercisesinthebookbythemathteacheryesterday.4.Kate____________(study)whiletheotherstudentswereplaying.5.Thetruth______________(tell)bytheteacherlastclass.6.Mr.Wang’sbike______________(borrow)byMrs.Kingthismorning.7.Thesestudents_____never_______(be)totheGreatWall.8.Theblackboard______________(clean)bysomeonejustnow.9.Potatoes______________(plant)inSouthAmericahundredsyearsago.10.Tony____________(study)inthisschoolsince2003.11.Thisteachingbuilding______________(build)lastyear.12.Thesecars______________(produce)inJapanin2003.13.Allofthestudents_____still_______(talk)whentheteachercamein.14.Thisinterestingstory______________(write)byO’Henryin1956.15.Bill’sshoes____________(find)underthebedbyhismotheratlastyesterdayafternoon.16.He____________(keep)thisbookforaboutamonth.17.Awatch____________(give)tomebymymotherasmybirthdaypresentlastweekend.18.HaiMei____________(invite)togotothecinemabyAnnalastSaturday.19.Theclock(repair)thedaybeforeyesterday.20.Thepicture(take)in2014.57 AppendixIVTeachingMaterials姓名班级I.ComprehensionTask:Readthepassageandtrytoanswerthequestions.Coffeehasbeenapartofpeople’slivesforthousandsofyears,andtodayitisstillafavoritedrinkofpeopleintheworld.Coffeeissopopular,butdoyouknowthestoryofcoffeeandhowitwasdiscovered?ThereisanoldstorythatsayscoffeewasdiscoveredinAfricaalong,longtimeago.Oneday,afarmerwaswatchinghisgoats,andhesawthemeatsomesmallberries(干种子)fromaplant.Aftertheyatetheberries,thegoatsbecameveryactive.Themanoftenfelttired,sohedecidedtotrytheberriestoo.Surprisingly,hedidnotfeeltiredanymore.Coffeeplantswerethusdiscovered.ThencoffeewastakenfromAfricatoArabia,andthereitwasfirstusedasmedicine.TheArabs(阿拉伯人)keptcoffeeasecretformanyyears.Later,coffeecametoTurkey,thenItaly,thenFrance.FromEurope,thecoffeeplantwastakentoAmerica.PeoplefoundthatcoffeeplantsgrowwellinmanypartsofSouthAmerica,solargecoffeefarmswerestarted,andmanycoffeeplantsweregrown.Onthesefarms,coffeebeanswerepickedfromtheplantsbyhand.Thenthebeansweredriedandpreparedformarkettosell.Differentcoffeebeansweremixedtogethertoproducedifferentkindsofcoffee.Coffeewassenttoallovertheworld,andsoonbecameverypopular.1.Wherewascoffeediscovered?2.Bywhomwasitdiscovered?3.Wherewascoffeetakentothen?4.WhatwascoffeefirstusedasinArabia?5.WhywerelargecoffeefarmsstartedinSouthAmerica?6.Howwerecoffeebeansgotfromtheplants?7.Whyweredifferentcoffeebeansmixedtogether?58 IIRetellingTask:Readthefollowingpassagecarefullyandthentrytoretellthecontentwithoutthescript.LastSaturday,agroupofstudentsvisitedtheBeijingMuseumofNaturalHistory.Theywereveryinterestedindinosaurs,sotheyvisitedtheDinosaurWorldfirst.Theretheysawmanybigdinosaureggs.TheseeggswerefoundintheGobiDesertbyagroupofscientistsinthe1920s.Theeggswerelaidlonglongagobydinosaurs.MissLi,theirguide,toldthemthatdinosaurslivedontheearthformorethan150millionyears,andthendisappeared65millionyearsago.Therewasalsoaspecialdinosauronshowinthemuseum.ThisdinosaurwasdiscoveredinLiaoningProvince,anditwascoveredwithfeathers.Itlookedlikeabigbird.Manyscientistsbelievethatdinosaurshavenotdisappeared.Theythinkdinosaurshavebecomebirds.IIIDictoglossTask:Whitedownwhatyouhaveheardingroupsofthreetofourandthentrytopullyouranswerstogethertoformanidealpassage.Atlast,oneofthemembersineachgroupwillberequiredtoreportyourtext.Yesterday,LinFengandhisclassmatesvisitedamuseum.Themuseumwasbuiltbylocalgovernment.Itwasstartedtobuildin1986andwasfinishedin1988.Itwaslocatedinthecentreofthecity.Theysawmanyoldinventionsonshow.Theywereallinventedhundredyearsago.LinFengwasinterestedinacupwiththreelegs.Itwasusedinolddaysandwasusedfordrinkingwine.Itwasmadeofmetal.ⅣOralProductionActivity：TheStoryofTomandJerry59 60