The main purpose of this study is to find out how target Korean learners’ writing ability will be affected while they are making persuasive writing and to discuss what effects will be made to detail writing areas by different focused feedbacks that ...
The main purpose of this study is to find out how target Korean learners’ writing ability will be affected while they are making persuasive writing and to discuss what effects will be made to detail writing areas by different focused feedbacks that teachers select to use.
The research questions are as follows;
Research Question 1. Is teacher’s feedback effective to improve learners’ writing ability according to different types of feedbacks, that is meaning-based, form-based and integrative feedback?
Research Question 2. What effects are generated by each focused feedback in enhancing learners’ writing ability?
Research Question 3. What effects are created by each focused feedback on the detail writing areas?
The research was conducted with twenty-seven intermediate Korean learners at a Korean Language Institute affiliated with Y university located in Kyongpook Province. They were divided into three groups and experiment group A was given with Meaning-based Feedback, group B given with Form-based Feedback and group C was given with Integrative Feedback. Test subject groups were provided with writing topics over 5 times after pre-writing assignments were finished. Each group was given with different focused feedbacks and post-writing assignments were conducted.
In order to find out the improvements of learners’ persuasive writing ability, pre and post writing compositions were statistically evaluated and processed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post Hoc Test.
What follows are results of the experiments.
Firstly, persuasive writing ability according to a teacher’s focused feedbacks seems to have been improved in meaning-based and integrative-based groups whereas not improved in form-based group.
However, it is not certain which is more effective between meaning- based feedback and integrative one. Although there was no significant statistic difference, it was found that the meaning-based feedback was somewhat effective in the meaning area.
Secondly, examining what effects were made in detail writing areas by a teacher’s focused feedback, meaning focused feedback group was evaluated higher than form-based group in the meaning areas, that is, ‘unity of contents’, ‘clarity of subject’, ‘logical structure of writing’, ‘demonstrations of validity’ and ‘meaning sum’.
In ‘logical structure of writing’ and ‘meaning sum’, writing ability of integrative focused group was found better than that of form-based feedback. However, when it comes to the writing ability, there was no significant statistic difference between meaning-based feedback and integrative groups.
In making persuasive writing study, a teacher’s meaning and integrative feedbacks enabled learners to improve their writing ability, however, no significant change was made in the form area.
As a result, it is considered meaningless to teach learners for the purpose of enhancing the ability simply in the form area and would be more effective to guide them in connection with meaning areas.
Thirdly, based on the analysis of writing ability improvements in detail writing areas depending on feedbacks, meaning-based group showed improvements in ‘unity of contents’, ‘clarity of subject’, ‘logical structure of writing’ and ‘demonstrations of validity’, in particular, in total scores of meaning areas.
As for the form areas, it was revealed effective in sociolinguistic function area. Form focused feedback group shows no effect in entire areas of meaning and form areas.
Lastly, integrative group was found improved in meaning and form areas, specifically, vocabulary, orthography and sociolinguistic function.
Despite the aforementioned, it is difficult to tell which feedback is more effective considering no significant statistic difference exists between meaning focused group and integrative groups.
Consequently, for the effective Korean persuasive writing study, it is considered that appropriately combined use of meaning focused feedback and integrative feedback will be the most effective writing feedback according to a variety of circumstances.
본 연구는 학문 목적 한국어 학습자들이 논설문 쓰기에서 교사의 피드백 초점(의미/형식/통합)에 따른 학습자들의 쓰기 능력 향상과 각 피드백 초점에 따른 세부 영역이 어떤 영향을 받는지...
본 연구는 학문 목적 한국어 학습자들이 논설문 쓰기에서 교사의 피드백 초점(의미/형식/통합)에 따른 학습자들의 쓰기 능력 향상과 각 피드백 초점에 따른 세부 영역이 어떤 영향을 받는지에 대해 알아보고자 한다. 중급 수준의 한국어 학습자 27명을 대상으로 사전 글쓰기를 한 다음 세 집단으로 나누어 5차의 글쓰기를 하면서 각각 의미 초점 피드백과 형식 초점 피드백, 통합 피드백을 제공한 후 사후 글쓰기를 실시하고 결과를 분석하였다.
본 연구의 실험 결과는 다음과 같다.
첫째, 교사의 피드백 초점에 따른 논설문 쓰기 능력은 의미 초점 피드백과 통합 피드백에서 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났고, 형식 초점 피드백은 효과가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 의미 초점 피드백과 통합 피드백 방식 중 어느 것이 더 효과적이라고는 볼 수 없고, 통계적으로 유의미하지는 않지만 의미 영역에서는 의미 초점 피드백이 통합 피드백보다 더 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다.
둘째, 교사의 초점별 피드백이 영역별로 학습자들의 쓰기 능력에 미치는 효과를 알아보니 의미 영역의 모든 평가 항목 ‘내용의 통일성’, ‘주제의 선명성’, ‘글의 논리 구조’, ‘논증의 타당성’, ‘의미 합’ 항목에서는 의미 초점 피드백 집단 학습자들의 글쓰기 능력이 형식 초점 피드백 집단 학습자들의 글쓰기 능력보다 더 높은 것으로 나타났고, ‘글의 논리 구조’와 ‘의미 합’에서는 통합 피드백 집단 학습자들의 글쓰기 능력이 형식 초점 피드백 집단 학습자들의 글쓰기 능력보다 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 의미 초점 피드백과 통합 피드백 두 집단 사이에는 글쓰기 능력에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 형식 영역에서는 ‘문법’ ‘어휘’, ‘맞춤법’, ‘표현’, ‘사회언어학적 기능’등 모든 항목에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었다. 이로써 한국어 학습자의 논설문 글쓰기 형식 영역에서는 피드백 초점에 따른 차이가 없었다는 것을 알 수 있다.
셋째, 피드백 초점에 따른 세부 영역별 쓰기 능력 향상을 분석해보니 의미 초점 피드백 집단에서는 의미 영역에서 ‘내용의 통일성’, ‘주제의 선명성’, ‘글의 논리 구조’, ‘논증의 타당성’, ‘의미 합’에서 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났고, 형식 영역에서는 ‘사회언어학적 기능’에서 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 형식 초점 피드백 집단에서는 의미 영역 및 형식 영역의 모든 항목에서 효과가 없었다. 마지막으로 통합 피드백 집단에서는 의미 영역에서 ‘내용의 통일성’, ‘주제의 선명성’, ‘글의 논리 구조’, ‘논증의 타당성’, ‘의미 합’ 등 의미 영역의 모든 항목과 형식 영역의 ‘어휘’, ‘맞춤법’, ‘사회언어학적 기능’, ‘형식 합’의 항목에서 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 의미 초점 피드백 집단과 통합 피드백 집단의 사후 평가를 비교해 볼 때 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없었던 점을 감안해보면 두 피드백 중 어느 한쪽이 더 효과적이라고 보기는 어렵다.
따라서 효과적인 한국어 논설문 쓰기 교육을 위해서는 상황에 맞게 의미 초점 피드백과 통합 피드백을 적절히 조절해서 사용하는 것이 가장 효율적인 방안이 될 것이라고 판단된다.
，韩语论文范文，韩语论文 |
