지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The purpose of this study was to examine several types of writing feedback for the writing courses at Kyungpook National University and the responses of students toward the feedback types in an effort to determine the efficiency of process-based writing feedback. The subjects in this study were 53 students at Kyungpook National University that offered process-based education. Out of them, 28 students were in class B in the department of life science as of the first semester of 2014, and 25 students belonged to class C in the school of economics and trade as of the same semester of the same year.
According to typical process-based writing education methods, correction guidance was provided before, during and after their writing, and how the students responded was analyzed. Many of the students answered it was “good” to be informed about the items of academic achievement assessment and standard example sentences before writing, and many also replied that it was “good” to obtain feedback from their professors while they engaged in writing. But many rated pre-writing discussion activities just as “fair.” The students responded to post- writing peer feedback in a different way according to their department. The largest group of the students in the department of life science rated it as “fair,” followed by “good” and “bad.” The greatest group of the students in the department of economics and trade rated it as “bad,” followed by “good” and “fair.”
The five types of feedback were efficient enough to ensure quality writing education, and the insufficient number of classes seemed to be the reason that discussion activities and peer feedback were respectively rated as “fair” and “fair” or “bad.” Therefore an increase in the number of classes was urgently required.
According to typical process-based writing education methods, correction guidance was provided before, during and after their writing, and how the students responded was analyzed. Many of the students answered it was “good” to be informed about the items of academic achievement assessment and standard example sentences before writing, and many also replied that it was “good” to obtain feedback from their professors while they engaged in writing. But many rated pre-writing discussion activities just as “fair.” The students responded to post- writing peer feedback in a different way according to their department. The largest group of the students in the department of life science rated it as “fair,” followed by “good” and “bad.” The greatest group of the students in the department of economics and trade rated it as “bad,” followed by “good” and “fair.”
The five types of feedback were efficient enough to ensure quality writing education, and the insufficient number of classes seemed to be the reason that discussion activities and peer feedback were respectively rated as “fair” and “fair” or “bad.” Therefore an increase in the number of classes was urgently required.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 첨삭방법의 종류와 그 장·단점
Ⅲ. 능동적 글쓰기를 위한 과정 중심 첨삭지도의 단계
Ⅳ. 나오며
참고문헌
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (5)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
글쓰기 교과과정 개발을 위한 고찰 : 플립러닝(flipped learning)을 통한 피드백 중심 수업개발
김지선
인문연구
2014
.12
대학 글쓰기 교재에 나타난 창의적 글쓰기의 양상과 수업 방법 탐색
김문희
인문과학연구
2015
.03
비교과 글쓰기 교육의 확산을 위한 사례 연구 : 한국 실용글쓰기 자격시험의 특징과 문항 분석을 중심으로
엄성원
문화와융합
2014
.12
스페인어 작문 교수 학습 전략 연구
양승관
중남미연구
2013
.10
한국인 학습자를 위한 스페인어 관사 교수 · 학습 방안 연구
양승관
중남미연구
2014
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-700-002884806