职前与在职英语教师对高中英语课堂纠错反馈态度对比探讨

elopment. As for practicalsignificances, for one thing, the study involves a study of teachers’ methods of CF, whichis helpful for teachers to find a more effective way for error correction so as to improveCF efficiency. At the same time, teachers can better pay attention to students’ preference on CF and build a good relationship between their students so as to achieve effectiveteaching. For another, the comparative analysis of CF between pre- and in-service Englishteachers can strengthen professional development of both groups of teachers. To bespecific, it can not only provide reference for pre-service teachers to get on the teachingpost, but also provide suggestions for in-service teachers’ CF practices. One thingdeserves attention is that the comparison between these two groups of teachers is not fortelling people which group is right and which group is wrong. The significance exhibits inthat through comparison, these two groups of teachers can know to what extent they knowabout CF and in what aspects they need improvements. Moreover, the comparison of pre-and in-service teachers’ attitude to CF not only focuses on their differences, but alsoconcerns with their commonalities. The commonalities indicate that they reach anagreement of CF in some aspects, which are also close to the standards. Meanwhile thedifferences can provide reference for them to make improvements.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Corrective Feedback

2.1.1 Error and Its Classification

Error is part of the deviation from the correct expression when language learners useand produce the target language, and it is also an unavoidable matter in their learningprocess. When it mentions the definition of ‘error’, there are different views fromdifferent perspectives.

Some researchers provide the definition of error from the aspect of misuse ofgrammar item. Burt & Dulay (1974) name errors as ‘goofs’, meaning a perceivabledeviation from the correct grammar rules of native speakers. What else, it is hard forlearners to correct these errors by themselves. Chun et al. (1982) and Richards et al. (1992)point out that errors refer to the misuse of a language item by language learners.According to Liski & Puntanen (1983), errors occur when learners do not follow thetarget language.

Some researchers define ‘error’ according to students’ ability of self-correcting. Edge(1989) defines an error as a form of wrong utterances that students cannot repeat thecorrect answer despite the wrong part is told by teachers. James (1998) argues that onecharacteristic of errors is that learners cannot correct by themselves if they are notprovided with further prompts.

Some researchers draw the definition of error on the basis of students’ competence oftarget language. Brown (2000) mentions that errors are caused by the deficiency of abilityfor target language rather than carelessness or hesitation. Harmer (2006) believes thaterrors are portion of the inter-language of learners, who may temporarily speak or writesentences that deviate from the correct target language. Besides, according to Hu Yuezhu(2009), when language learners make inappropriate use of language due to incomplete orwrong language learning, they are considered to have made errors. In addition, DaiYanhong (2013) identifies errors as all language phenomena that do not conform to thestandards of the target language in classroom learning, which is attributed to theinsufficiency of knowledge in target language.

2.2 Related Research at Home and Abroad

2.2.1 Related Researches Abroad

Previous research focus on the five questions raised by Hendrickson (1978), i.e., 1)whether to do error correction; 2) which types of errors should be corrected; 3) who willcorrect students’ errors; 4) what is the timing for CF; 5) which methods of CF is mosteffective? Research concerning the above five aspects are shown as follows.

Whether to correct errors or not is much related to the attitudes to the necessity of CF,which includes not only teachers’