All Issue

2018 Vol.34, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

Comparison of Variables Influencing on Students’ Satisfaction about the Process of English Writing Conducted by English Native and Korean Instructors

원어민 및 한국인 교수자에 따른 영어쓰기 과정의 만족도에 영향을 미치는 요인 비교

정양수

Jung, Yang-soo

30 November 2018. pp. 393-409
PDF Citation
Abstract
The purposes of this study are to identify what variables were involved and to compare if there are differences between these variables influencing on students’ satisfaction about the process of English writing conducted by native and Korean instructors. For these purposes, 98 Korean university students participated in a survey and interview. For data analysis, factor analysis, one-way ANOVA, and t-test were used. According to the results of this study, variables related to writing procedure, characteristics of students and instructors, types of feedback that instructors provided, and ways of providing feedback by instructors were identified to have an influence on the students’ satisfaction about the English writing process. Moreover, significant differences in the degrees of satisfaction that students rated on these variables were found between native and Korean instructors. These findings will be useful for instructors in planning the instructional design of English writing materials and courses by considering these variables carefully to increase the satisfaction that students feel about the English writing process. (Chungnam National University)
Keywords
satisfaction
native
non-native
writing process
feedback instructional design
References
  1. 강남욱, 이슬비. 2008. 한국어 교사의 학습자 오류 평가에 대한 연구: 원어민 교사와 비원어민 교사의 오류 판정 양상을 중심으로. 국어교육연구. 22.22, 185-227.
  2. 김양희, 주미진. 2010. 다양한 종류의 피드백이 영어작문 향상에 미치는 효과: 교수자, 동료 피드백을 중심으로. 영어어문교육. 16.4, 133-152.
  3. 김혜련, 고경석. 2008. 초등학교의 원어민 영어보조고사 활용실태: 경기도를 중심으로. 초등영어교육. 14.2, 23-43.
  4. 김충일. 2005. 컴퓨터 기반 및 과정중심의 작문교육에 있어서 상호작용에 대한 연구. 영어교육연구. 17.4. 203-227.
  5. 김효순. 2007. 상호작용적 피드백 유형이 영어쓰기능력과 정의적 영역에 미치는 효과. 전주교육대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.
  6. 방영주. 2007. 효율적인 원어민 영어교사 자질에 대한 인식. 현대영어교육. 8.3. 341-365.
  7. 변지현. 2014. 영작문 수업에서 교사 피드백에 대한 학습자의 인식 및 반응 조사. 언어학연구. 19.3. 27-51.
  8. 여경희. 2012. 대학 교양영어 수업에서의 원어민 교수와 비원어민 교수에 대한 학생들의 인식 및 태도 연구. 영미어문학. 105, 275-301.
  9. 이완기. (1995). 대학생의 영어 말하기 능력 평가 모형. 영어교육. 50.1. 37-63.
  10. 이향. 2018. 말하기 평가에서 비원어민 예비교사의 채점 경향. 언어학 연구. 48. 321-340.
  11. 전혜원, 이호. 2015. 학습자 참여에 의한 영어 쓰기 평가 척도 개발 및 자기평가 연구. 현대영미어문학. 33.3, 285-309.
  12. 정양수. 2005. CMC기반의 언어학습 환경에서 행해진 영어 쓰기활동이 영어 말하기 능력에 미치는 효과. 언어연구. 21.2, 113-132.
  13. 정양수. 2012. 영어쓰기 과정에서 제공되는 피드백의 유형과 제공방법에 대한 학습자의 요구분석 연구. 현대영미어문학. 30.1, 31-56.]
  14. 정양수. 2017. 교수자에 따른 영어쓰기 피드백의 유형과 효과에 관한 학습자들의 인식 연구. 현대영미어문학. 35.1, 245-270.
  15. Barmwell, D. 1989. Native' Native Speakers and Judgements of Oral Proficiency in Spanish. Language Testing 6.2, 152-163. 10.1177/026553228900600203
  16. Brown, A. 1995. The Effect of Rater Variables in the Development of an Occupation-Specific Language Performance Test. Language Testing 12.1, 1-15. 10.1177/026553229501200101 10.1191/0265532203lt242oa
  17. Chandler, J. 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency in L2 Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 267-296. 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
  18. Cole, P. G., and Chan, L. K. S. 1987. Teaching Principles and Practice. NY: Prentice-Hall.
  19. Dobranic P., and Jung, Y. S. 2016. A Study on Korean University Students' Perception of Native and Non-native English Speaking Instructors' English Courses. Journal of Linguistic Studies 21.3, 1-26. 10.21291/jkals.2016.21.3.3
  20. Douglas, D. 1994. Quantity and Quality in Speaking Test Performance. Language Testing 11, 125-144. 10.1177/026553229401100203
  21. Ferris, D. R. 1995. Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multi-Draft Composition Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 29.1, 33-53. 10.2307/3587804
  22. Ferris, D. R., and Roberts, B. 2001. Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit Does it Need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10.3, 161-184. 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
  23. Greller, M. M., and Herold, P. M. 1975. Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13.2, 244-256. 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90048-3
  24. Hedgcook, J., and Lefkowitz, N. 1992. Collaborative Oral/Aural Revision in Foreign Language Writing Instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 51-70. 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B
  25. Hirvela, A. 1999. Collaborative Writing Instruction and Communities of Readers and Writers. TESOL Journal 8.2, 7-12.
  26. Kim, Y. H. 2009. An Investigation into Native and Non-native Teachers' Judgements of Oral English Performance: A Mixed Methods Approach. Language Testing 26.2, 187-217. 10.1177/0265532208101010
  27. Hill, K.1996. Who should be the Judge?: The Use of Non-native Speakers as Raters on a Test of English as an International Language. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 5.2, 29-49.
  28. Leki, I. 1991. The Preference of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals 24, 203-218. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
  29. Liu, J., and Hansen, J. G. 2002. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arber: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.8952
  30. Mangelsdorf, K., and Schlumberger, A. 1992. ESL Student Response Stances in a Peer Review Task. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 235-254. 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A
  31. Medgyes, P. 1992. Native or Non-native: Who's Worth More? ELT Journal 46.4, 340-349. 10.1093/elt/46.4.340
  32. NcNamara, T. 1996. Measuring Second Language Performance. London: Longman.
  33. Nelson, G. L., and Murphy, J. 1993. Peer Response Groups: Task and Social Dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 172-193.
  34. Saito, H. 1994. Teachers 'Practices and Students' Preferences for Feedback on Second Language Writing: A Case Study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal 11.2, 46-70. 10.18806/tesl.v11i2.633
  35. Sherry, L. 2000. The Nature and Purpose of Online Discourse: A Brief Synthesis of Current Research as Related to the WEB Project. International Journal of Telecommunications 7, 19-51.
  36. Shi, L. 2001. Native and Non-native Speaking EFL Teachers's Evaluation of Chinese Students' English Writing. Language Testing 18.3, 303-325. 10.1191/026553201680188988 10.1177/026553220101800303
  37. Straub, R. 1997. Student's Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study. Research in the Teaching of English 31, 91-119.
  38. Truscott, J. 1996. The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning 46.2, 327-369. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
  39. Tsui, A. B. M., and Ng, M. 2000. Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing 9.2, 147-170. 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
  40. Young, R., and Milanovic, M. 1992. Discourse Variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 403-424. 10.1017/S0272263100011207
  41. Zhang, S. 1999. Thoughts on Some Recent Evidence Concerning the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 8.3, 321-326. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80119-2
Information
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 34
  • No :3
  • Pages :393-409
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.3.201811.393
Journal Informaiton The Journal of Studies in Language The Journal of Studies in Language
E-Book
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close