Individual Learners' Development in EFL Writing at a Japanese Junior High School： Effects of Teacher's Feedback and Peer Responses on Their Performance

全文

(1)Individua1Leamers’Deve1opmentinEFLW㎡tingataJapaneseJuniorHighSchoo1： E脆。tsofTeacher’sFeedbackandPeerResponsesonTheirPe此㎜ance 教科・領域教育学専攻言語系コース M08138K ネ中原克典. Instmctions to improve junior high stu−. C㎜lent1y，however，very1itt1e research. dents’writing abi1ities have been neg1ected. on EFL writing has been conducte（1，especiaIly，. （Aoki，2006，p．7）because of the current em−. in the context of Japanese junior high schoo1s，. phasis on ora1com工nunication activities pre−. a1thoughmuch more studies with EFL1eamers. scribed inthe present Course ofStudy（MEXT，. at te血iary Ieve1can be fbund．The present. 1998）and because of the lack of1esson time. study thus addressed the b11owing research. which were a11ocated to writing inst㎜ction．. questions conceming the teaching ofwiting in. These pedagogica1trends were renected in the. the EFL j㎜ior high schoo1context：（a）How. resu1tsoftherecent s㎜vey donebyMEXT㎝d. wou1d teacher’s危edbac）co㎜ents enab1e. by1oca1boards of educatlon；they indlcated. 1eamers to notice errors they made in their. that scores in writing had not reached a satis一. writing and eventuauy correct them by making. 血。tory 1eve1．It is thus necessary to exp1ore. use of resour㏄materia1s，inc1uding bi1ingua1. what fact0Ts contdbute to L2（Enghsh）writing. di1ti1n㎞el，1gr㎜arreferencelook，㎜1. pe此mance on Japanese EFL junior high. in−c1ass news1etters which contained the stu−. schoo1students and how teac㎞ng writing can. dents’samp1e writing；（b）how wou1d c1ass−. be improved．. room socia1interactions，e．9．，9roupεmd peer. 0ne of the issues which are considered. response activities，施ster1e㎝1er engagement. to contribute to the so1ution ofthe prob1ems is. in witing tasks and improve their writing；and. the ways in which teacher危edback shou1d be. （c）what由。tors contribute toward the deve1−. provided to the students writing．The previous. opm㎝t of1eamers’ski11s and positive a血itudes. studies conducted with the adu1t ESL1ea二mers. toward witing in EFL．. in the United States suggested that indirect. To answer these research questions，we. 餌a㎜ar1omeltion1班emore血vorab1etodi−. conducted a丘ve−month c1assroom research，in. reCt，0Vert COrreCtiOnS（i．e．，9iVing anSWerS）. which the students in a pub1ic junior high. because indirect teacher危edback fbr1earners. schoo1experienced passage writing tasks．In. p1ay a ro1e of guided1eamj血g（Chand1er，2003；. the w㎡ting tasks the students used various re−. Ferris，2002；Hy1εmd＆HyI8md，2006；La18mde，. source materia1s．75eighth−grade s血dents vo−. 1982）．Apart丘。m thc corrective危e（丑back to. 1㎜teered to pa廿icipate in the study and were. improve grammatical a㏄uracy in writing，. taught by a ma1e teacher in the schoo1．A11the. witten危edback（comments），which危。used. tasks in the Eng1ish 1essons were joint1y. the meaning of1eamers’written products，has. pIamed by the authorεmd the teacher，who. been proved e脆。tive（Go1dstein，2004．2005；. taught the lesson．The students’writing were. Leki，1990a）．In addition，the ro1es of peer re−. compi1ed in their notebooks，which were co1−. sponse activities in ESL witing classroom，in. lected㎝d危edbackandco㎜entswerepro−. which1e㎜ers share the mea㎡ng of their. vided by the author．Direct conective帖edback. drais active1y and give their responses to their. was de1iberate1y avoided because the previous. peers，have been fbcused on since1980s（Liu. 1itera耐e suggested that mere corrections by. ＆Hansen，2002）．. the teacher wou1d deprive students of their. 276一.

(2) chmces to notice errors and would not1ead. teria1s丘equent1y，some students showed their. them to renewed1anguage awareness．In addi−. appreciation of their ski11improvement（e．g．，. tion，teacherco㎜entsonthestudents’drais. e脆。tive use of dictionaries），εmd a1so showed. were given as危edback to encourage the stu−. their nedgIing sense ofautonomous le㎝1ing．. dents to be more invo1ved in the witing tasks．. 2．Open−ended，meaning一色。used w㎡ting. During the tasks，group and peer response ac−. tasks alnd group and peer response activities. tivities were introduced，which were expected. a11owed the students engaged in the writing. to reduce students’difllicu1ties and create co1−. activities．In pa血icu1ar，the students deveIoped. 1aborative atmospheres in tbe c1assroom．At the. the sense of readership／authorship whi1e co1−. end of the research，the author interviewed25. 1aborative1y working on writing tasks，which. students to㎜derst㎝d their perceptions toward. were considered rather demanding允r eighth. the tasks and L2writing．. graders．. Durin9151essons，theお11owings were. 3． Encouraging and meaning−based. co11ected as data：（a） students’wi廿en prod−. co㎜ents舟。mboththeauthormdpeersnot. ucts；（b）危edbackandco㎜ents（丘。mboth. on1y reduced the students’anx1et1es in making. the author a皿d peers）on the students’w1itten. errors but a1so he1ped become independent L2. products；and（c）student intemiews．The first. writers，as m㎝y students st舳ed to take risks. ｛md second were care血uy categorized and the. and wite more creative sentences．Moreover，. 丘equency ofeach危edbac）response type were. this tendency was obsewed in advanced1eam−. ca1cu1ated The resu1ts showed that the en−. erS aS We11aS nOViCe1eamerS，. couraging teacher危edback and meaning−based. The study revealed the e脆。tiveness of. co㎜entlonthe1血dentl’㎞tingwerlprom−. indirect teacher危edback a廿ached with the in−. inent．This clea二rly indicated that the autbor. StruCtiOnS tO uSe reSOurCe materia1S e脆CtiVe1y，. paid much砒ention to the contents ofthe s如一. ㎜d thc importance ofsociaHnteractions which. dents writing and process of the students’. engage1e㎝lers in w㎡ting more cohesive pas−. “Titing rather than just correcting their gram−. sages in L2．In other words，the results indi−. matica1errors（Chapter3，Data AnaIysis1）．. cated that even young ado1escent1earners in. The post−task intemiews were conducted to. EFL context have the potentia1to acquire. con丘㎜the resu1ts ofDataAna1ysis1，which. meaning一お。used，cohesive L2composition. suggested that the students used teacher危ed−. ski11s．. bac）Peer responses to improve their writing. However，some pedagogical issues re−. ski11s or increase their engagement in witing. mained untouched such as：teachers’feedback. activities．One student’s intewiew scripts was. sensitivity，ways to reduce time−consuming. analyzed by Grounded Theory Approach. 危edback work1oad，㎝d the need of. （Craighi11−Saiki， 2006． 2008； Sato， 2008；. 1ong−spamed assessing丘amework（e．9．，au−. Strauss＆Corbin，1990），which revea1ed a dy−. thentic assessment）of the students’writing. namic relationship ofimportant categories；e．g．，. per曲mance as it seems to it the approach of. “9enerating a sense of security in writing，’’. process−oriented and meεming一此。used L2. “taking the initiative in vπiting activities”and. composition tasks．. “writinga1ameanl ofco㎜u㎞cationwith 主任指導教員吉田達弘. peers”（Chapter4，DataA血a1ysis2）．. 指導教員吉田達弘. Data Ana1yses l and2provided−the fo1−. 1owing three丘ndings： 1．As the indirect teacher feedback eventua11y made the s血dents use resource ma一. 277.

(3)