A Study on Error Types Represented in Computer-Based Speaking and Computer-Based Writing: Centered around Korean Learners
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aims to identify the most frequently erroneous linguistic and surface structure forms committed in computer-based speaking (CBS) and computer-based writing (CBW) performances by Korean university students. To examine the errors, a total number of thirty students were involved in two different tasks (CBS and CBW) based on the same question “Do you prefer living off campus or on campus? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer” on a certain given time. Their CBS and CBW samples were collected and analyzed based on the two main error analysis taxonomies: linguistic and surface structure. The linguistic taxonomy included the syntactic complexity (number of sentences, embedded sentences, tokens, and types) and word level errors(-ed/-ing, singular, plural forms, and subject-verb agreement), whereas the surface structure taxonomy focused on deletion, addition, repetition, substitution, ordering, and run-on sentences. The participants’ CBS and CBW samples have been implemented as research instruments while manipulating the descriptive statistics and t-test analysis purposes. According to the overall analysis, the students committed the following errors. First, the results of the linguistic error analysis focusing on the syntactic complexity revealed that they produced more tokens and types in CBW than in CBS and also yielded more sentences and embedded sentences in CBW than in CBS. Likewise, the analysis under the word level errors was carried out and identified that the most prominent errors in terms of the morphemes (-ing/-ed) and subject-verb agreement committed in CBS than in CBW. However, fewer errors in singular and plural forms in CBS were found than in CBW. Second, the results under the category (Surface Structure Error Taxonomy) were carefully examined and identified the following findings. More addition errors were identified in CBS than in CBW. However, the errors on deletion, repetition, and substitution in CBS and CBW showed no significant differences statistically.
Abstract
This study aims to identify the most frequently erroneous linguistic and surface structure forms committed in computer-based speaking (CBS) and computer-based writing (CBW) performances by Korean university students. To examine the errors, a total number of thirty students were involved in two different tasks (CBS and CBW) based on the same question “Do you prefer living off campus or on campus? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer” on a certain given time. Their CBS and CBW samples were collected and analyzed based on the two main error analysis taxonomies: linguistic and surface structure. The linguistic taxonomy included the syntactic complexity (number of sentences, embedded sentences, tokens, and types) and word level errors(-ed/-ing, singular, plural forms, and subject-verb agreement), whereas the surface structure taxonomy focused on deletion, addition, repetition, substitution, ordering, and run-on sentences. The participants’ CBS and CBW samples have been implemented as research instruments while manipulating the descriptive statistics and t-test analysis purposes. According to the overall analysis, the students committed the following errors. First, the results of the linguistic error analysis focusing on the syntactic complexity revealed that they produced more tokens and types in CBW than in CBS and also yielded more sentences and embedded sentences in CBW than in CBS. Likewise, the analysis under the word level errors was carried out and identified that the most prominent errors in terms of the morphemes (-ing/-ed) and subject-verb agreement committed in CBS than in CBW. However, fewer errors in singular and plural forms in CBS were found than in CBW. Second, the results under the category (Surface Structure Error Taxonomy) were carefully examined and identified the following findings. More addition errors were identified in CBS than in CBW. However, the errors on deletion, repetition, and substitution in CBS and CBW showed no significant differences statistically.
참고문헌 (24)
- Ahn, B. K., "The effects of errors on native speaker comprehension in written English discourse of Korean students", doctor, pp.1990
- Ancker, W., "Errors and corrective feedback : Updated theory and classroom practice", English Teaching Forum, 38(4), pp.20~24 (2000)
- Brown, H. D., "Teaching by principles : Interactive language teaching methodology" (1994), Prentice Hall Regents
- Brown, H. D., "Principles of language learning and teaching" (2000), Addison Wesley Longman, Inc
- Chin, C., "Error analysis : An investigation of spoken errors of Korean EFL learners", English Teaching, 56(2), pp.97~123 (2001)
- 조효진, "English Verb Use in Korean College Students’ Essays: A Corpus-based Study", 영어교육, 67(2), pp.271~289 (2012), 한국영어교육학회[DOI]
- Corder, S. P., "The significance of learners’ errors", International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, pp.161~170 (1967)
- Corder, S. P., "Error analysis and interlanguage" (1981), Oxford University press
- Dulay, H., "Language two" (1982), Oxford University Press
- Ellis, R., "Understanding second language acquisition" (1985), Oxford University Press
- Ellis, R., "The study of second language acquisition" (1994), Oxford University Press
- Ellis, R., "Second language acquisition" (1997), Oxford University Press
- Ellis, R., "Analysing Learner Language" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Ferris, D. R., "The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes : A response to Truscott(1996)", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, pp.1~10 (1999)
- Kim, H., "An analysis or learners’ errors made in their English composition, especially in the high school level", master, pp.1987
- Kim, J., "Error analysis : A study of written errors of Korean EFL learners", Journal of The Applied Linguistics Association of Korea, 14(2), pp.21~58 (1998)
- Mitchell, R., "Second language learning theories" (2004), Hodder Arnold
- Muriel. S., "Introducing second language acquisition" (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Noh, S. K., "An analysis of errors by steady-state L2 English learners: Focused on errors of salient unnaturalness and communication breakdown", master, pp.2010
- Richards, J. C., "Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics" (2002), Pearson Education Limited
- Selinker, L., "Interlanguage", International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), pp.209~223 (1972)
- Selinker, L., "Rediscovering interlanguage" (1992), Longman
- Vahdatinejad, S., "Student’s error analysis and attitude towards teacher feedback using a selected software", master, pp.2008
- Weireesh, S., "How to analyze interlanguage", Journal of Psychology and Education, 9, pp.113~122 (1991)