Grammatical Accuracy among Korean EFL Learners by Proficiency Level
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of second-language learners’ linguistic errors by proficiency level. For this purpose, I conducted an empirical study using learners’ written data that explored the types of errors made by students at different proficiency levels: A1, A2, B1, and B2. More specifically, this study attempts to describe the types of grammatical errors by proficiency levels that occur in written production. I analyzed students’ writings for errors utilizing the scheme proposed by the Center for English Corpus Linguistics at Université Catholique de Louvain. The results reveal that first, the most prominent grammatical error categories in Korean students' essays were lexis (843) and article (835) errors. Second, there are no significant differences in the frequency of grammatical errors among the four groups (p > .05). Lastly, the hit ratio indicates that 92.2% (83 cases) of the 90 total cases in the lower-proficiency group were correctly classified into the lower-proficiency group, although the logistic regression model does not provide statistically significant results. Lastly, I discuss several pedagogical implications.
Abstract
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of second-language learners’ linguistic errors by proficiency level. For this purpose, I conducted an empirical study using learners’ written data that explored the types of errors made by students at different proficiency levels: A1, A2, B1, and B2. More specifically, this study attempts to describe the types of grammatical errors by proficiency levels that occur in written production. I analyzed students’ writings for errors utilizing the scheme proposed by the Center for English Corpus Linguistics at Université Catholique de Louvain. The results reveal that first, the most prominent grammatical error categories in Korean students' essays were lexis (843) and article (835) errors. Second, there are no significant differences in the frequency of grammatical errors among the four groups (p > .05). Lastly, the hit ratio indicates that 92.2% (83 cases) of the 90 total cases in the lower-proficiency group were correctly classified into the lower-proficiency group, although the logistic regression model does not provide statistically significant results. Lastly, I discuss several pedagogical implications.
참고문헌 (23)
- Bachman, L. F., "Fundamental considerations in language testing" (1990), Oxford University Press
- Bachman, L. F., "Language testing in practice" (1996), Oxford University Press
- Barrot, J. S., "Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college-level L2 writers’ proficiency", Assessing Writing, 47, pp.100510~ (2021)
- Dagneaux, E., "Error tagging manual version 1.1", Center for English Corpus Linguistics, Université catholique de Louvain, ~ (1996)
- Dodigovic, M., "Automated writing evaluation : The accuracy of Grammarly’s feedback on form", International Journal of TESOL Studies, 3(2), pp.71~87 (2021)
- Foster, P., "Capturing accuracy in second language performance : The case for a weighted clause ratio", Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, pp.98~116 (2016)
- Housen, A., "Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency", pp.1~317 (2012)
- Iwashita, N, "The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching", pp.1~7 (2018)
- 정미영, "Types of Errors in College Students" L2Writing in EFL Environments", Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), pp.123~140 (2013), 범태평양 응용언어학회
- Kuiken, F., "Rating written performance: What do raters do and why?", Language Testing, 31(3), pp.329~348 (2014)
- Lambert, C., "Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research : Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition", Applied Linguistics, 35(5), pp.607~614 (2014)
- Larsen-Freeman, D., "Teaching grammar", Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 3, pp.251~266 (2001)
- Moghtadi, L., "Second language grammatical proficiency and third language acquisition", International Education Studies, 7(11), pp.19~27 (2014)
- Michel, M., "The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition", pp.1~38 (2017), Routledge
- Nosirova, D., "Learning grammar through context : Enhancing language proficiency", Modern Science and Research, 2(7), pp.349~351 (2023)
- "UAM corpus tool version 3.0: Tutorial introduction" (2013)[URL]
- Park, S., "Comparison of lexical complexity in L2 speaking and writing and factors predicting English speaking proficiency", 3L : Language, Linguistics, Literature, 29(1), pp.125~139 (2023)
- Pohar, M., "Comparison of logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis : A simulation study", Metodoloski zvezki, 1(1), pp.143~ (2004)
- Polio, C. G., "Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research", Language Learning, 47(1), pp.101~143 (1997)
- Purpura, J. E., "Assessing grammar" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Sio, J., "Binary logistic regression analysis of instructional leadership factors affecting English language literacy in primary schools", 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 25(2), pp.22~37 (2019)
- Wang, L., "UAM corpus tool : A convenient and comprehensive software", Sch Int J Linguist Lit, 5(10), pp.352~356 (2022)
- 윤소연, "Learner Corpus: Collection and Application of the English Part of Incheon National University Multi-Language Learner Corpus (INU-MULC)", 응용언어학, 38(4), pp.33~58 (2022), 한국응용언어학회