Through contrastive analysis of teacher-response and peer-response in the teaching of Korean writing, this research focuses on the Korean majors in Chinese university, with the purpose of developing an effective teaching method for Korean writing. Bas... Through contrastive analysis of teacher-response and peer-response in the teaching of Korean writing, this research focuses on the Korean majors in Chinese university, with the purpose of developing an effective teaching method for Korean writing. Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis, this research elaborates the aspects concerning both the providing and the accepting of the two different responses, and analyses the improvement of students’ performance in Korean writing and their emotional changes. The thirty Korean majored students under experiment are from two sophomore classes in a Chinese university, who are divided into a teacher-response group and a peer-response group. The analysis of TOPIK score and pre-test score shows that the Korean writing ability of these students is of equal level. During the four weeks’ experiment, five responses are conducted with pre-tests and post-tests for students’ writing ability, and also two questionnaires for the students’ emotional changes are collected. The analysis on the providing and the accepting of responses is based upon previous studies, and suitable analytical criteria are formulated. As for the providing of responses, ‘content’, ‘structure’, ‘form’ represent different focuses, meanwhile ‘praise’, ‘indication’, ‘suggestion’, ‘question’, ‘criticism’, and ‘others’ represent different modes. As for the accepting of responses, ‘full acceptance’, ‘partial acceptance’, ‘rejection’, ‘deletion’ are the four degrees of acceptance. According to the above analytical criteria, this research analyses the aspects and effects of teacher-response and peer-response. The results are as follows. First, the frequency of teacher-responses goes in the sequence of ‘form>content>structure’for different focuses of response; meanwhile, the frequency sequence of responding modes is ‘indication>criticism> question>praise>suggestion’. As for ‘content’ and ‘structure’, teacher-response mainly takes the modes of ‘indication’ and ‘criticism’; and as for ‘form’, the mode of ‘indication’. The frequency of peer-responses goes in the sequence of ‘form>content> structure’for different focuses of response; meanwhile, the frequency sequence of responding modes is ‘indication>suggestion>question> criticism>praise’. As for ‘content’ and ‘structure’, peer-response mainly takes the modes of ‘suggestion’ and ‘question’; and as for ‘form’, the mode of ‘indication’. In summary, it is generally believed that linguistic knowledge has a great influence on Korean writing as a foreign language in China. Whether teachers or students attach great importance to language knowledge and ability, therefore, the frequency of ‘form’is much higher in both teacher-response and peer-response. Second, statistical analysis through SPSS 23.0 shows that, in the frequency of ‘content’ and ‘structure’, there is no significant difference between teacher-response group and peer-response group; however, in the frequency of ‘form’, teacher-response group is obviously higher than peer-response group. The modes of ‘indication’, ‘suggestion’ and ‘criticism’are different in response frequency; ‘indication’ and ‘criticism’are high for the teacher-response group, and‘suggestion’is higher for the peer-response group. As for‘praise’ and‘question’, there is no obvious difference between the two groups. Third, the analysis of students’ acceptance of the two types of response shows that the sequence of acceptance frequency for teacher-response group in different focuses is ‘form>structure> content’. As for the modes, ‘indication’for ‘form’ is the highest, then the‘suggestion’for ‘content’ and ‘structure’, and finally ‘question’ and‘criticism’. The sequence of acceptance frequency for peer-response group in different focuses is ‘structure>form>content’. As for the modes, ‘suggestion’ for ‘structure’and ‘content’ is the highest, then ‘indication’, and finally ‘criticism’ and ‘question’. Four, the SPSS 23.0 statistical analysis of acceptance shows that the two groups are similar in‘content’and ‘structure’; and teacher-response group is higher in the focus of ‘form’. The acceptance of ‘indication’is higher in the teacher-response group than in the peer-response group, and the acceptance of ‘suggestion’is higher in the peer-response group than in the teacher-response group. The acceptance of ‘question’and‘criticism’has no significant difference between the two groups. Five, the final drafts of teacher-response group, after five responses, score higher than the first drafts in total marks and in four aspects (content, structure, vocabulary, grammar); the social linguistic aspect, however, is not significantly improved. The final drafts of peer-response group score higher in total marks and in three aspects (content, structure, vocabulary); the grammar and social linguistic aspect are not significantly improved. As shown by the pre-test and post-test, through five responses, the general writing ability of the students in both groups is significantly improved; however, the aspects of content, structure, vocabulary and social linguistic performance undergo no significant improvement. As for the aspect of grammar, it is only significantly improved in the teacher-response group and not in the peer-response group. Six, through five responses, the students in both groups are promoted in self-confidence, and unchanged in motivation, attitude and anxiety. Compared with teacher-response group, the students in peer-response group have elevated their interests. Finally, the survey of students’ preference shows that teacher-response is more welcomed in China. This research confirms, via above quantitative and qualitative analysis, that teacher-response and
|
