The Qualitative and Quantitative Effects of Coherence-focused Writing Instruction : The Case of Japanese Junior and Senior High Schools

以连贯性为中心的写作教学的定性和定量效果：日本初中和高中的案例

• 批准号: 15520348
• 负责人: MOCHIZUKI Akihiko
• 金额: $ 1.73万
• 依托单位: University of Tsukuba
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 2003
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 2003 至 2004
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/en/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-15520348/
• 关键词: coherence-focused composition; quantity-focused composition; integrative composition; composition feedback; coherence indices; quantity indices; error indices; vocabulary richness indices; 一貫性重視の英作文指導; 多量に書かせる英作文指導; 読む・話す・書く総合的な英作文指導; 英作文のフィードバ

A research project in junior high school was conducted in 2003. First, a proficiency test, a pre-research composition and a questionnaire on composition were given to 134 second-year students in three classes. Thereafter all the participants received instruction on coherent writing. From the following week, each class was instructed to write a composition based on three different teaching methods : (a)Method 1, composition with primary focus on coherence and organization without any attention on grammatical errors, (b)Method 2, composition with primary focus on writing as much as possible in a given time, and (b)Method 3, composition after reading a related English paragraph silently and then discussing what to write with a partner. No control group was arranged due to pedagogic consideration. Method 1 and 2 classes were given 15 minutes, and Method 3,25 minutes for the whole process. Instruction was given to each class by a total of three teachers of their high school. Researchers rec … More eived compositions and returned them with comments the following week. This was repeated six times. The same investigations as the pre-research ones such as a questionnaire, were done to the participants. The same research method except that there was a control class, was employed in senior high school in 2004 with 139 participants.The analysis measurements were (a)coherence (Mochizuki, Kubota and Iwasaki's measurement developed by revising Aoki's (1991) method), (b)holistic assessment, (c)grammatical correctness using twelve indices such as the number of error-free T units, (d)quantity using nine indices such as total words, (e)grammatical complexity with four indices such the number of T-units, and (f)vocabulary richness with seven indices such as the number of sophisticated words.The results of junior high school showed that Hypothesis 1 "Coherence-focused Method 1 is superior to Method 2 and 3 in terms of coherence" was partially supported. Hypothesis 2 "Method 1 is superior to Methods 2 and 3 in terms of grammatical correctness" was supported. Hypothesis 3 "Quantity-focused Method 2 is superior to Methods 1 and 3 in terms of writing more" was not supported. Hypothesis 4 "Method 1,2 and 3 help participants to produce more grammatically complex sentences" was supported. Hypothesis 5 "Methods 1,2 and 3 help participants to use richer vocabulary" was partially supported. For Research Question 1 "Which of the three methods is superior in terms of coherence, grammatical correctness, quantity, and vocabulary richness, respectively?" it was shown that Method 1 was best in terms of coherence and grammatical correctness, that there was no difference in terms of quantity, and that Method 3 was best in terms of vocabulary richness. For Research Question 2 "How do composition abilities and skills relate to English proficiency?" it was shown that holistic assessment correlated highly with English proficiency in Method 3 classes.The results of senior high school showed that Hypotheses 1 and 2 were both supported, that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported, and that Hypotheses 4 and 5 were not supported. For Research Question 1, it was shown that Method 1 was best in terms of coherence, grammatical correctness and quantity, and that there was no difference in terms of vocabulary richness. For Research Question 2, proficiency correlated weakly with coherence, quantity, and grammatical complexity. Less

2003年在初中开展了一个研究项目。首先，对三个班的134名二年级学生进行了水平测试、预研作文和作文问卷调查。此后，所有参与者都接受了连贯写作的指导。从接下来的一周开始，每个班级都被要求根据三种不同的教学方法写一篇作文：（a）方法1，作文主要关注连贯性和组织性，而不关注语法错误，（B）方法2，作文主要关注在给定时间内尽可能多地写作，以及（B）方法3，在阅读一段相关的英语段落后，与同伴讨论该写什么。出于教学的考虑，没有安排对照组。方法1和方法2的课时为15分钟，方法3的课时为25分钟.每个班由他们高中的三位老师授课。研究人员报告 ...更多信息 把作文写下来，并在第二周附上评语。这重复了六次。对参与者进行了与预研究相同的调查，如问卷调查。本研究采用相同的研究方法，于2004年在一所高中的139名被试中进行了实验研究，只不过实验中有一个控制班（Mochizuki，Kubota和Iwasaki通过修订Aoki（1991）的方法开发的测量），（B）整体评估，（c）使用12个指标的语法正确性，例如无错误T单位的数量，（e）语法复杂性，使用四个指标，例如T单位的数量，初中生的实验结果表明，假设1“注重连贯的方法1在连贯性方面上级方法2和方法3”得到了部分支持。假设2“方法1在语法正确性方面上级方法2和方法3”得到支持。假设3“注重数量的方法2在写作方面上级方法1和方法3”不被支持。假设4“方法1、2和3帮助被试产生更复杂的语法句子”得到支持。假设5“方法1、2和3帮助被试使用更丰富的词汇”得到部分支持。对于研究问题1“在连贯性、语法正确性、数量和词汇丰富性方面，这三种方法中哪一种上级？“结果表明，方法1在连贯性和语法正确性方面最好，在数量方面没有差异，而方法3在词汇丰富性方面最好。对于研究问题2“写作能力和技巧与英语水平有何关系？结果表明，在方法3的班级中，整体评价与英语水平高度相关。高中的结果表明，假设1和2都得到支持，假设3得到部分支持，假设4和5不被支持。对于研究问题1，研究表明，方法1在连贯性、语法正确性和数量方面最好，在词汇丰富性方面没有差异。对于研究问题2，熟练程度与连贯性，数量和语法复杂性弱相关。少