簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
許淑芬 Hsu, Shu Fen |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
教師回饋對新竹縣國小六年級學童英文句型寫作影響之研究 An investigation into the effects of teacher feedback on English sentence writing of grade six elementary school students in Hsin Chu county |
| 指導教授： |
許炳煌
Sheu, Ping Huang |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
外國語文學院 - 英語教學碩士在職專班 The Master of Arts in English Teaching |
| 論文出版年： | 2013 |
| 畢業學年度： | 101 |
| 語文別： | 英文 |
| 論文頁數： | 132 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 句型寫作 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | Sentence Writing |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：219 下載：5 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究在探討兩種不同教師回饋對新竹縣國小六年級學童英文句型寫作之影響以及此兩種回饋對學生英語學習態度與動機的影響。此研究以來自新竹縣某國小六年級兩個班級學生為研究對象，此二班級隨機指派為實驗組及控制組。實驗組實施習作批改時的間接回饋而對照組則實施傳統直接回饋，每週均批改一次習作。經過14週的回饋後，兩組皆進行英文句型寫作測驗並施以英語學習態度與動機問卷;3週後再進行英文句型寫作延宕測驗。研究結果顯示，學生受過教師的間接回饋批改後在英文句型寫作之正確率上有顯著進步，此顯著進步也表現在延宕測驗中的介系詞題型；但其對訂正習作上錯誤則表現顯著焦慮。希望本研究能為英語老師在教學實務上提供助益。
The present study mainly aimed at investigating the effects of two different types of teacher feedback on English sentence writing accuracy. Meanwhile this paper also aimed at examining learners’ attitudes of the two different types of teacher feedback, and the changes of learners’ attitudes and motivation towards English learning after the implementation of different teacher feedbacks.
Two sixth-grade classes in Hsin Chu County were randomly assigned to be the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group received indirect feedback (IDF) on their workbook while the control group received traditional direct feedback (DF) once a week. After the 14-week treatment, an English writing proficiency test and an English learning attitudes and motivation questionnaire were administrated to examine learners’ sentence writing accuracy and their learning attitudes and motivations respectively. Finally, a retention test was conducted in 3 weeks later to know the retention effect of two types of teacher feedback.
The findings showed that the IDF had helped students gained significant progress on sentence writing accuracy. Moreover, the significant improvement was also presented on the aspect of preposition in the retention test. However, the IDF group expressed significant anxiety towards correcting errors on workbooks after the treatment of IDF. Hopefully, the findings of the present study may provide English teachers with some useful pedagogical implications.
Table of Contents
Dedication Page………………………………………………………………………iii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………viii
List of Figures………………………………………………………ix
Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………x
English Abstract………………………………………………………xi
Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………1
Background and Motivation…………………………………1
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………5
Research Questions……………………………………………7
Definition of Terms…………………………………………8
Significance of the Study………………………………………10
Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………13
The Concept of Writing……………………………………13
Writing Models………………………………………………………15
Writing Pedagogy in Taiwan………………………………………20
Grammatical Errors and Corrections …………………………22
Common Grammatical Errors in EFL Writing ………………23
Different Correction Ways of Grammatical Errors………26
Teacher feedback ……………………………………………………29
The Concept of Teacher feedback………………………………29
The Error-oriented Feedbacks……………………………………30
The Content-oriented Feedbacks…………………………………32
The Combination of Two Feedback Types………………………33
Different Teacher Feedback Formats……………………………35
Related Studies on Teacher Feedback……………………38
Studies in ESL Context………………………………………………39
Studies in EFL Context……………………………………43
Studies Related to Students’ Attitudes…………47
Chapter Summary…………………………………………………49
Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………51
Participants……………………………………………………………51
Instrument………………………………………………………………52
English Writing Proficiency Test (EWPT) …………………52
English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire (ELAQ) ………57
Procedures…………………………………………………………60
Treatment……………………………………………………………………65
Five Targeted Errors……………………………………………………65
Two Types of Teacher Feedback………………………………………66
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………68
Chapter Four: Results……………………………………………………69
The Effect of Indirect Teacher Feedback(IDF)…………………69
The Effect of Direct Teacher Feedback(DF)………………………73
The Comparison on Post- and Retention Test of IDF and DF Groups……………………………………………………………………………76
The Comparison of the Student Attitudes toward Two Feedback Types………………………………………………………………………………77
Chapter Five: Discussion…………………………………………………87
Research Question1: Did the DF group perform better in the post-EWPT than in the pre-EWPT? In addition, did the group perform better in the retention EWPT than
in the post-EWPT? If yes, in what ways?…………………………87
Research Question2: Did the DF group perform better in the post-EWPT than in
the pre-EWPT? In addition, did the group perform better in the retention EWPT than in the post-EWPT? If yes, in what ways? ……………………………………………………………………………90
Research Question3: Did the IDF group and the DF group perform differently in the post EWPT? Besides, did the two groups perform differently in the retention EWPT? If yes, in what ways?………………………………………………………………91
Research Question4: Did the IDF group and the DF group express different
attitudes toward the treatment? If yes, in what ways?……………………………………………………………………………………92
Chapter Six: Conclusions……………………………………………………………………97
Main Findings…………………………………………………………………97
Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………………………97
Limitation and Suggestions………………………………………………99
References……………………………………………………………………102
Appendixes……………………………………………………………………112
Appendix A: English Writing Proficiency Test……………113
Appendix B: English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire (Chinese Version)…………………………………………………………115
Appendix C: English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire (English Version)…………………………………………………………117
Appendix D: Suggestions for English Writing Proficiency Test………………………………………………………………………………119
Appendix E: Suggestions for English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………120
Appendix F: Essay Correction Code (ECC)……………………121
List of Tables
Table 1 Sample Questions of EWPT…………….………….…...……………...…….55
Table 2 A Correction Guide.…………………………..……………………………...62
Table 3 Paired T-Test on Pre- and Post-EWPT of IDF Group………….……......…...70
Table 4 Paired T-Test of Each Error Type on Pre- and Post-EWPT of IDF Group.......71
Table 5 Paired T-Test on Post- and Retention EWPT of IDF Group……………...…..72
Table 6 Paired T-Test of Each Error Type on Post- and Retention EWPT of IDF
Group………………………………………………………………………….73
Table 7 Paired T-Test on Pre- and Post-EWPT of DF Group…………………............74
Table 8 Paired T-Test on Post- and Retention EWPT of DF Group………….…….....74
Table 9 Independent Sample T-Test on Post- Tests of IDF and DF groups……...…...76
Table 10 Independent Sample T-Test on Retention Tests of IDF and DF Groups…....77
Table 11 Independent Sample T-Test on Main Section of IDF and DF Groups…....…78
Table 12 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 1 of ELAQ of IDF and DF
Groups…………………………………………………………..………..….79
Table 13 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 2 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups..80
Table 14 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 3 and 4 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups……………………………………………………………………….82
Table 15 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 5 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups..83
Table 16 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 6 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups..84
Table 17 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 7 of ELAQ of IDF and DF
Groups...............................................................................................................85
List of Figures
Figure 1 Flow Chart of the Study…………………………….……………..…….…..60
Figure 2 Revising Procedure of the Unsuccessful Revision………..……………...….62
Figure 3 A Sample of IDF………………………………...………..….………………67
Figure 4 A Sample of DF………………………………….……….……...….……….67
Abedi, R., Latifi, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2010). The effect of error correction vs. error
detection on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ writing achievement. English
Language Teaching, 3(4), 168-174.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Freeman.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best
method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive
view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3),191-205.
Brown, H. (2000). Teaching by principles. New York, NY: Pearson Education
Incorporation.
Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The
criterion online writing service. Association for the Advancement of Artificial
Intelligence, 25(3), 27-36.
Camhi, P. J. (2001). A pedagogic rationale for grammar instruction. Idiom, 30(1), 3-4.
Camhi, P. J. (2004). Getting it right: An editing text for ESL/EFL students (2nd ed.).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co.
Camhi, P. J., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2008). Merging a metalinguistic grammar approach
with L2 academic process writing: ELLs in community college. Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language, 12(2), 1-25.
Carreira, M. J. (2006). Motivation for learning English as a foreign language in Japanese elementary schools. The Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 28(2), 135-158.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching:
A guide for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chandrasegaran, A. (1986). An exploratory study of EL2 students' revision and self
corrective skills. RELC Journal, 17(2), 26-30.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement
in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Chang, S. C. (2005). The effect of multi-draft writing procedure on EFL high school
students’ writing and quality and their attitudes toward writing and revision (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Chang, T. K. (2011). A study of vocabulary proficiency and gender differences in
English vocabulary learning strategies used by junior high school students in
Taipei (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chen Chi University, Taipei,
ROC.
Chen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan.
In Dept. Applied English, Ming Chuan University (Ed.), Proceedings of the
eighteenth conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of
China (pp. 41-58). Taipei, ROC: Crane.
Chiou, M. H. (2005). An analysis of tense errors by junior high school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.
Chiang, P. J. (1992). How to improve English composition teaching in Taiwan’s high
schools: A study of error types and learning strategies (Unpublished master’s
thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.
Chuang, W. (2003). The effect of four different types of corrective feedback on EFL
students’ writing in Taiwan. Shih Chien Journal of General Education, 4,
123-138.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance:
The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’
explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45-66.
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Boulder, CO:
Westview. Department of Education, Taipei City Government. (2010).
Curriculum guidelines of elementary English language teaching and learning.
Retrieved from May, 6th,2012 from
http://etweb.tp.edu.tw/Fdt/D03/share/soushow.aspx?CDE=RSB20101213182433OIA&RESCDE=RES20100920142037OUP
Dinnen, J. L. D., & Collopy, R. M. B. (2009). An analysis of feedback given to strong
and weak student writers. Reading Horizons, 49(3), 239-256.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ehrlich, R., & Zoltek, S. (2006). It's wrong not to tell students when they're wrong.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 7-10.
Eisenstein, M. (1983). Native reactions to non-native speech: A review of empirical
research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 60-76.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on
form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft
composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A
response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we,
and where do we go from here? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the
short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F.
Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.
81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in
an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79,
329-324.
Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback
on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five
countries. IRAL,45(1), 2007.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M.P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary
and student revisions: Teachers and students working together. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.
Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Harvester Wheatsheaf, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1988). Test of written language-2. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Han, Z. H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Essex, UK:
Pearson Education.
Hartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics.
London, UK: Applied Science.
Heaton, J. B. (1989). Writing English language tests. London, UK: Longman.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/ aural revision in foreign
language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3),
255-276.
Higgs, T. V. (1979). Coping with composition. Hispania, 62, 673-678.
Huang , H. H. (2004). A study of senior high students’ response to peer and teacher
feedback on EFL compositions (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Huang, H. S. (1994). An analytic study on tense errors committed by Chinese learners of English in southern Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.
Huang, L. J. (2006). A comparison of the effects of underlining with coding system and
underlining: Teachers’ feedback on accuracy and fluency (Unpublished master’s
thesis). National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, ROC.
Huang, S. P. (2009). The efficacy of teacher feedback on multi-draft writing--a case
study in Taiwan high school English class (Unpublished master’s thesis).
National Chen Chi University, Taipei, ROC.
Huang, Y. P. (2006). The effects of error correction on the English writing of senior
high school students in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, Y. H. (2007). A study on EFL six graders’ English composition in an
eight-block folio (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei, ROC.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’
writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Kasper, L. F. (1995). Applying the principle of nonjudgmental awareness to the ESL
writing class. Journal of Teaching Writing, 14(1), 73-85.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of feedback to the
development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75,
305-313.
Kent, D. (2002). Sharpening your writing skills. British Columbia, Canada: Technical
Communicators.
Kim, J. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 4, 161-170.
Krashen, S. (2005). The composing process and the academic composing process. In
Y. J. Chen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected papers from the fourteenth
international symposium on English teaching (pp. 66-78). Taipei, ROC: Crane.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.,
pp. 219-248). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Lalande, J. K. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern
Language Journal,66, 140-149.
Lasagabaster, D. (1998). Creatividad y conciencia metalinguistica: Incidencia en el
aprendizaje del ingles como L3. Bilbao, Spanish: University of the Basque
Country.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written reponse. In B. Kroll
(Eds.), Second language writing (pp.57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.
Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction.
Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 180-196.
Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory &
Cognition, 23(6), 767-779.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching
methodology. In K. D. Bot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign
language research in cross- cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Benjamins.
Li, S. F. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis.
Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
Li, Y. S. (2009). A computer-aided analysis of spelling errors made by Taiwanese
high school English students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yulin
Technical University, Yulin, ROC.
Lin, B. S. (1990). Methodology. Taipei, Taiwan: Wunan.
Liu, Y. L. (2010). The impact of feedback on EFL college students' revising process
(Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taipei,
ROC.
Martlew, M. (1983). Writing in focus. Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
Parsons, R., & Brown, K. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action
researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pincas, A., (1982a). Teaching English writing. London, UK: Macmillan.
Pincas, A., (1982b). Writing in English. London, UK: Macmillan.
Polio, C., Fleck, N., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners’
changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 7, 43-68.
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their
written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Rahimi, M. (2008). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian
EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: Is learner’s mother tongue relevant?
Read & Writing, 22(2), 219-243.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect
on ESL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.
Santos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. (2010). The differential effect of two
types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation
vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1). 131-154.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2),
209-231.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal,
23, 103-110.
Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational
Leadership, 63(3), 66-70.
Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In D. Nunan (Ed.) Practical English language teaching,
(1st ed., pp. 87-108). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Contemporary.
Tan, H. M. (2007). A study of EFL learners’ writing errors and instructional strategies.
Journal of Kun Shan University, 4, 113-122.
Taiwan Test Central. (2012). Basic competence test. Retrieved from May, 25th, 2012
from http://www.taiwantestcentral.com/Tests/Test.aspx?ID=269
Tsang, W. K. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis
of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2),
187-209.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric, 27(2), 93-108.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, W., & Dong, Y. (2010). The justification of teacher-guided error correction of
Chinese college students’ English writing. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 33(3), 63-75.
Wang, W. H., & Hu, D. M. (2010). A study on the effect of teacher correction on
non-English major college students’ writing. Foreign Language Education in
China, 3(1), 41-52.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague, NY: Mouton.
Willingham, D. B. (1990). Effective feedback on written assignments. Teaching of
Psychology, 17(1), 10-13.
Williams, J. D. (1998). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Winterowd, W. R., & Murray, P. Y. (1985). English writing and skills. San Diego,
CA: Coronado.
Wu, C. P. (2003). A study on the use of feedback in senior high school English
composition: Students’ preferences and teachers’’ practices (Unpublished
master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.
Wu, W. S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the
revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Language and
Literature, 3, 125-139.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4),
697-715.
