동료첨삭을 통한 과정적 글쓰기 교육의 효과 분석
Analysis on Educational Effectiveness of Process oriented Writing through Peer Correction Coaching
0
조회
0
다운로드
17
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
I have analyzed the educational effectiveness of peer correction in process oriented writing, through the analysis of survey questionnaire distributed in Academic Writing class opened in H university. First, subjects of the study were forty college students; twenty-two students majoring in humanities and social science studies and eighteen majoring in natural science and engineering. Questionnaire was composed of eight sections which can understand process oriented writing through peer correction coaching in general. Second, according to the [Section1] which asked ‘what as the most difficult point in writing column?’, students replied they have hardship in 16 different items. Subjects replied ‘Writing composition stick to the outline’ the most troublesome. This means that students have difficulty in expressing their ideas in writing. In addition, maintaining cohesion and coherence through writing is not an easy quest. Therefore, instructors should develop various teaching methods which could help individual students to write appropriate composition to settle this problem. Third, In [Section2] which asked ‘Were process-oriented writings through peer correction effective?, twenty students(90%) majoring in humanities and social science replied it was helpful and sixteen(88.9%) of those majoring in natural science and engineering replied the same. In this lecture, three instructor corrections were given as well. This was a supplementary method to compensate lack of individual or team’s editing ability. Instructor correction served as a factor to raise effectiveness of peer correction. Forth, Students pointed out effectiveness of peer correction through twenty section in [Section3] which asked ‘How peer correction helpful?’. Students showed the greatest preference on the item’ I could get feed back on the things I could not think of’. This reveals that students could overcome their limitations and difficulties in writing with the help of their classmates through peer correction. Fifth, In [Section4], ‘If peer corrections were not helpful, what is the reason?’, students pointed out four items. One obvious complaint was the lack of professionalism. This cannot be adjusts in short period of time. Therefore, instructors have a duty to find effective methods to improve students’ grammatical and editing ability. Sixth, [Section5] required students to list the five steps of process oriented writing in a order of effectiveness. This matches with the result of [item1]. Subject decision and making outline is the most difficult part in writing first draft. Therefore, students received help the most in these parts from peer correction. Seventh, [Section6] subjects were asked to list the effective points in peer editing among twelve given choices about writing first draft. Item6, which checks if the paragraphs are well connected each other and thesis is expressed logically, was chosen the most effective points about peer correction. The result came as above since other items are already confirmed through process-oriented writing. Eventually, what makes the thesis clear is the coherence and cohesion of the paragraphs. Eighth, in [Section7], students replied to items about the hardest part regarding peer correction. Students showed difficulty in editing awkward or ungrammatical sentences. The reason for the problem lies in the students’ ignorance in grammatical rules. Therefore, instructors should educate students on grammar and related knowledge before peer correction activities. Ninth, [Section8] tried to seek students’ opinion about the improvement proposal with nineteen items. Most students thinks the current process is appropriate. However, for the development of peer correction activity, there should be various improvements in the time, place, and the method of the correction as well as checklist, evaluation on idle corrector, and degree of the feedback.
Abstract
I have analyzed the educational effectiveness of peer correction in process oriented writing, through the analysis of survey questionnaire distributed in Academic Writing class opened in H university. First, subjects of the study were forty college students; twenty-two students majoring in humanities and social science studies and eighteen majoring in natural science and engineering. Questionnaire was composed of eight sections which can understand process oriented writing through peer correction coaching in general. Second, according to the [Section1] which asked ‘what as the most difficult point in writing column?’, students replied they have hardship in 16 different items. Subjects replied ‘Writing composition stick to the outline’ the most troublesome. This means that students have difficulty in expressing their ideas in writing. In addition, maintaining cohesion and coherence through writing is not an easy quest. Therefore, instructors should develop various teaching methods which could help individual students to write appropriate composition to settle this problem. Third, In [Section2] which asked ‘Were process-oriented writings through peer correction effective?, twenty students(90%) majoring in humanities and social science replied it was helpful and sixteen(88.9%) of those majoring in natural science and engineering replied the same. In this lecture, three instructor corrections were given as well. This was a supplementary method to compensate lack of individual or team’s editing ability. Instructor correction served as a factor to raise effectiveness of peer correction. Forth, Students pointed out effectiveness of peer correction through twenty section in [Section3] which asked ‘How peer correction helpful?’. Students showed the greatest preference on the item’ I could get feed back on the things I could not think of’. This reveals that students could overcome their limitations and difficulties in writing with the help of their classmates through peer correction. Fifth, In [Section4], ‘If peer corrections were not helpful, what is the reason?’, students pointed out four items. One obvious complaint was the lack of professionalism. This cannot be adjusts in short period of time. Therefore, instructors have a duty to find effective methods to improve students’ grammatical and editing ability. Sixth, [Section5] required students to list the five steps of process oriented writing in a order of effectiveness. This matches with the result of [item1]. Subject decision and making outline is the most difficult part in writing first draft. Therefore, students received help the most in these parts from peer correction. Seventh, [Section6] subjects were asked to list the effective points in peer editing among twelve given choices about writing first draft. Item6, which checks if the paragraphs are well connected each other and thesis is expressed logically, was chosen the most effective points about peer correction. The result came as above since other items are already confirmed through process-oriented writing. Eventually, what makes the thesis clear is the coherence and cohesion of the paragraphs. Eighth, in [Section7], students replied to items about the hardest part regarding peer correction. Students showed difficulty in editing awkward or ungrammatical sentences. The reason for the problem lies in the students’ ignorance in grammatical rules. Therefore, instructors should educate students on grammar and related knowledge before peer correction activities. Ninth, [Section8] tried to seek students’ opinion about the improvement proposal with nineteen items. Most students thinks the current process is appropriate. However, for the development of peer correction activity, there should be various improvements in the time, place, and the method of the correction as well as checklist, evaluation on idle corrector, and degree of the feedback.
참고문헌 (54)
- 김경훤, "대학 글쓰기 교육의 첨삭 지도 사례", 새국어교육, (83), pp.27~56 (2009), 한국국어교육학회[DOI]
- 김낙현, "대학 글쓰기 교육의 효과적인 첨삭지도 방법에 대한 고찰", 교양교육연구, 6(2), pp.323~348 (2012), 한국교양교육학회[DOI]
- 김남미, "대학 교양 과정에서의 협력적 글쓰기 수업 방안", 한민족문화연구, (25), pp.115~138 (2008), 한민족문화학회[DOI]
- 김남미, "대학 글쓰기수업에서의 동료평가 결과 연구", 한민족문화연구, (30), pp.151~180 (2009), 한민족문화학회[DOI]
- 김남미, "대학 학습자 글쓰기의 첨삭지도 방안", 우리말연구, (30), pp.269~296 (2012), 우리말학회[DOI]
- 김양선, "대학 글쓰기에서 첨삭-상담-고쳐쓰기 연계 교육의 효과 연구 -한림대학교 글쓰기 멘토링 사업의 사례를 중심으로", 교양교육연구, 6(4), pp.377~406 (2012), 한국교양교육학회
- 김종록, "자연과학계 논문 문장의 사용 실태와 그 개선 방안", 어문학, (111), pp.115~162 (2011), 한국어문학회
- 김종록, "과학 글쓰기 전략" (2011), 박이정
- 김종록, "자연과학계 논문의 문장 표현에 대한 연구", 어문학, (122), pp.1~39 (2013), 한국어문학회
- 김종록, "자연과학계 논문 텍스트의 연결성 분석", 어문학, (124), pp.1~37 (2014), 한국어문학회
- 김종록, "동료첨삭을 통한 과정적 글쓰기 지도 모형 설계", 국어교육연구, (59), pp.45~92 (2015), 국어교육학회(since1969)
- 김태옥, "담화․텍스트언어학 입문" (1991), 양영각
- 김혜정, "텍스트 이해의 과정과 전략에 관한 연구 : '비판적 읽기' 이론 정립을 위한 학제적 접근", 박사, 국어교육학, pp.2002
- 나은미, "대학생들의 문장 쓰기 실태와 지도", 한성어문학, 27, pp.235~270 (2008), 한성어문학회
- 박상민, "첨삭지도에 대한 학습자 요구분석과 효율적인 첨삭지도 방법", 작문연구, (13), pp.350~380 (2011), 한국작문학회
- 박영목, "작문 교육론" (2008), 역락
- 성은미, "고쳐쓰기 활동의 사례 분석을 통한 작문 교육 연구", 국어교육연구, 35, pp.115~146 (2003), 국어교육학회
- 손혜숙, "대학 글쓰기의 첨삭지도 사례와 교육적 효과", 한민족문화연구, (41), pp.417~446 (2012), 한민족문화학회[DOI]
- 심미자, "팀기반 학습(Team-Based Learning) 전략", 공학교육, 16(3), pp.57~60 (2009), 한국공학교육학회
- 염민호, "대학 ‘글쓰기’ 교과에 활용 가능한 피드백의 특성과 방법", 새국어교육, (83), pp.311~336 (2009), 한국국어교육학회[DOI]
- 오윤호, "대학 글쓰기의 효과적인 피드백 방안", 한민족문화연구, (25), pp.139~164 (2008), 한민족문화학회[DOI]
- 옥현진, "외국 대학 작문교육 실태 조사 연구", 대학작문, pp.93~109 (2010), 대학작문학회
- 원만희, "대학 글쓰기 교육의 개선 방향과 방법에 관한 시론", 교양교육연구, 3(1), pp.105~118 (2009), 교양교육학회
- 원진숙, "글쓰기의 문제해결전략" (1998), 동문선
- 이순옥, "현장 사례를 활용한 첨삭 지도 모형 설계", 대학작문, (8), pp.143~175 (2014), 대학작문학회
- 이은자, "글쓰기 능력 향상을 위한 첨삭 피드백-고쳐쓰기 지도 모형", 새국어교육, (86), pp.279~306 (2010), 한국국어교육학회[DOI]
- 이은희, "텍스트언어학과 국어교육" (2000), 서울대출판부
- 이재승, "글쓰기 교육의 원리와 방법" (2002), 교육과학사
- 임택균, "동료 평가를 활용한 쓰기 태도의 향상 방안", 작문연구, (17), pp.385~411 (2013), 한국작문학회
- 장혜영, "논증의 역사" (2006), 커뮤니케이션북스
- 전지니, "학술적 글쓰기의 단계적 피드백 방향 고찰－이화여자대학교 학술 비평 과제의 피드백 사례를 중심으로", 교양교육연구, 8(1), pp.79~112 (2014), 한국교양교육학회
- 정희모, "대학 글쓰기 교육과 과정 중심 방법의 적용", 현대문학의 연구, (29), pp.483~516 (2006), 한국문학연구학회
- 정희모, "대학생 글쓰기의 수정 방법에 관한 실험 연구 －자기첨삭, 동료첨삭, 교수첨삭의 효과를 중심으로－", 국어교육학연구, (33), pp.657~685 (2008), 국어교육학회[DOI]
- 조윤아, "동료첨삭의 언어적 행동 및 글쓴이 반응에 대한 연구", 인문연구, (70), pp.333~366 (2014), 인문과학연구소
- 주민재, "대학 글쓰기 수정 교육에 관한 수업 모형 연구", 작문연구, (6), pp.281~318 (2008), 한국작문학회
- 주세형, "장르, 텍스트, 문법: 쓰기 교육을 위한 문법" (2007), 박이정
- 지현배, "첨삭의 항목별 효용과 글쓰기 지도 전략", 우리말글, 48, pp.55~84 (2010), 우리말글학회
- 지현배, "글쓰기 효능감을 고려한 첨삭지도 전략", 대학작문, (2), pp.157~181 (2011), 대학작문학회
- 지현배, "첨삭의 표준 문장과 첨삭 조언지의 활용 사례", 대학작문, (4), pp.93~110 (2012), 대학작문학회
- 최규수, "첨삭지도에 대한 대학생들의 반응 양상과 교육적 효과의 문제 —명지대의 사례 분석을 중심으로", 반교어문연구, (26), pp.129~157 (2009), 반교어문학회
- 최규수, "첨삭지도의 원론적 방식과 효율적인 지도 방법의 제안", 이화어문논집, 19, pp.65~80 (2001), 이화어문학회
- 최선경, "비판적 읽기 교육을 위한 질문 구성", 새국어교육, (69), pp.61~87 (2005), 한국국어교육학회
- 최선경, "첨삭지도를 통한 글쓰기 교육 방안 - 분석-진단-처방-협의의 4단계 동료첨삭 모형을 중심으로 -", 한민족문화연구, (35), pp.301~331 (2010), 한민족문화학회[DOI]
- 최웅환, "대학 글쓰기 교육에서의 첨삭지도", 교양교육연구, 7(1), pp.331~364 (2013), 한국교양교육학회
- Beaugrande R. A, "Introduction to Text Linguistics" (1981), Longman
- David R. Russel, "Writing across the Curriculum in Historical Perspective: Toward a Social Interpretation", College English, 52(1) (1990)
- Gerald M. Nosich, "Learning to Think Things : A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum" (2005), Pearson Prentice Hall
- Halliday M.A.K., "Cohesion in English" (1976), Longman
- James G. Paradis, "The MIT Guide to Science and Engineering Communication" (2002), The MIT Press
- Michaelson, L. K., "Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Group" (2002), Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc
- Sommer, N., "The Novice as Expert : Writing the Freshman Year", CCC, 56(1) (2004)
- Sylvan Barnet, "Critical Thinking, Reading, And Writing", pp.2007, Bedford
- Thomas N. Huckin, "Technical Writing and Professional Communication For nonnative Speakers of English" (1991), McGraw-Hill, Inc
- Thornbury Scott, "How to Teach Grammar" (2004), Longman