臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
文獻指出寫作糾正回饋對於不同英語程度的成年人寫作中的文法正確率有其成效，然其在兒童英語學習者的寫作正確率之應用仍相對匱乏。本研究旨在探討直接及間接糾正回饋對於兒童英語學習者寫作中的簡單過去式、不定詞、過去進行式、主詞動詞一致、原型動詞與過去式動詞等六種動詞形式錯誤的助益，以及間接糾正回饋後自我訂正錯誤的過程。本研究以四位12歲兒童英語學習者為研究對象，透過分析四人所完成的144篇看圖寫作的方式，觀察學習者在接受直接及間接糾正回饋後，動詞形式正確率的改變及自我訂正錯誤的過程。
研究結果發現，直接及間接糾正回饋在有規則可循的動詞型式正確使用上有其助益，但在簡單過去式的正確使用上較無幫助，其可能的原因為：
(1) 給予直接糾正回饋的頻率及一致性，
(2) 學習者個人差異及對錯誤糾正回饋的專注力，
(3) 間接糾正回饋造成對動詞形式錯誤類型的誤解。
此外，間接糾正回饋後的自我訂正錯誤過程，提供學習者測試對語言的假設，幫助減少動詞形式錯誤。
因此，本研究建議，直接和間接糾正回饋對於減少動詞形式的錯誤皆有所幫助，但須提供兒童學習者持續性的糾正回饋及自我訂正錯誤的機會; 另外，教師可搭配使用直接及間接糾正回饋，提供多元的寫作錯誤回饋方式，增進兒童英語學習者動詞形式正確率。
關鍵字: 糾正回饋、動詞形式錯誤、兒童英語學習者

While the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF) on adult learners with different English proficiency has been extensively investigated, the application of WCF on young EFL writers’ writing accuracy is relatively unexplored.
This study aimed to investigate whether Direct and Indirect WCF lead to accuracy gain on six types of verb form errors: (1) simple past errors, (2) incorrect formation of to-infinitive, (3) incorrect formation of past continuous, (4) Subject-Verb agreement errors, (5) base verb errors and (6) incorrect verb past form. Besides, the participants’ responses toward their verb form errors in self-correction after receiving Indirect WCF were also explored. 144 picture story writings produced by four 12-year-old female EFL learners were analyzed after receiving Direct and Indirect WCF during 18 weeks to observe the development of written accuracy improvement on verb forms and the process of self-correction after receiving Indirect WCF.
The findings of the current study showed that both Direct and Indirect WCF may lead to accuracy gain on more treatable errors that are rule-based. However both types of WCF did not bring about an overall improvement on the accurate use of simple past. The possible reasons may be due to (1) the frequency and inconsistent correction of Direct WCF, (2) individual difference as well as learners’ attention to WCF, and (3) learners’ misinterpretation to the error types. Besides, Indirect WCF may enable young writers to test language form, and at the same time decreases verb form errors.
Some implications were drawn based on the findings. Both types of WCF are supplementary to accuracy improvement on verb forms if young writers are given frequent exposure to WCF and opportunities to self-correction. In addition, teachers who intend to apply WCF on young EFL writers’ verb form errors should take advantage of sustained and multiple uses of both Direct and Indirect WCF to form a more flexible correction scheme that leads to gradual improvement on written accuracy.

Table of Contents
摘要 i
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Purpose and Questions 6
1.3 Definition of Terms 7
1.3.1 Written Corrective Feedback 7
1.3.2 Direct Written Corrective Feedback 7
1.3.3 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 8
1.3.4 Written Accuracy 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2.1 Definition and Theoretical Background of Written Correct Feedback 11
2.2 Writing and Written Corrective Feedback 16
2.3 Errors and Written Corrective Feedback 19
2.4 Types of Written Corrective Feedback 20
2.4.1 Direct Written Corrective Feedback 21
2.4.2 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 22
2.5 Related Studies of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 23
2.5.1 One-Shot Experimental design of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective
Feedback 23
2.5.2 Sustained and Classroom-Based Direct and Indirect Written Corrective
Feedback 27
2.6 Chapter Summary 30
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 31
3.1 Research Setting 31
3.2 Participants 33
3.3 Instruments 34
3.3.1 Picture story writing task 34
3.3.2 The Provision of Written Corrective Feedback 37
3.3.2.1 Direct Written Corrective Feedback 37
3.3.2.2 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 38
3.3.3 The Evaluation of Written Accuracy in Picture Story Writing 39
3.4 Procedures 40
3.4.1 Picture Story Writing Task 43
3.4.2 The Provision of Written Corrective Feedback 43
3.5 Data Analysis 44
3.6 Chapter Summary 45
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 47
4.1 Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Simple Past Errors 47
4.2 Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Incorrect Formation of To-Infinite 56
4.3 Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Incorrect Formation of Past Continuous 61
4.4 Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Base Verb Errors 62
4.5 Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Subject-Verb Agreement Errors 64
4.6 Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Verb Past Form Errors 67
4.7 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback and the Participants’ Responses toward Simple Past Errors 69
4.8 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback and the Participants’ Responses toward
Incorrect Formation of To-Infinitive 73
4.9 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback and the Participants’ Responses toward Incorrect Formation of the Past Continuous 79
4.10 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback and the Participants’ Responses toward Base Verb Errors 80
4.11 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback and the Participants’ Responses toward
Subject-Verb (S-V) Agreement Errors 82
4.12 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback and the Participants’ Responses toward Verb Past Form Errors 85
4.13 Chapter Summary 88
CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS 93
5.1 Discussion 93
5.1.1 Frequency and Inconsistent Correction of Direct WCF 94
5.1.2 Direct WCF and Individual Difference 97
5.1.3 Learners’ Attention to Direct WCF 99
5.1.4 Indirect WCF: Misinterpretation of Error Types 100
5.1.5 Indirect WCF: Rule-Governed Linguistic Items (Treatable Errors) 102
5.1.6 Responses toward Indirect WCF: Hypothesis Testing and Self-Correction 104
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 107
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions 108
REFERENCES 113
APPENDIX: Picture Story Writing Task 121

List of Tables
Table 3-1……………………………………………………………………………. 45
Table 4-1……………………………………………………………………………. 90
Table 4-2……………………………………………………………………………. 92

List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Picture story writing and revision-direct WCF 36
Figure 3-2 Picture story writing and revision-indirect WCF 36
Figure 3-3 Procedure of the study 42

REFERENCES
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183-210.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.
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.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348-363.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistic, 31(2), 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
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, D. (2012). The written corrective feedback debate: Next steps for classroom teachers and practitioners. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 861-867.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140.
Chan, A. Y. W. (2010). Toward a taxonomy of written errors: Investigation into the written errors of Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners, TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 295-319.
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.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learners` Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
Darus, S., & Ching, K., (2009). Common errors in written English essays of form one Chinese students: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 242-253.
Doughy, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-11). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
Ferris, D. (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 (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Ferris, D., & 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.
Gass, S. M. (2005). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-249). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gass, S. M. (2010). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. New York, NY: Routledge.
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 320-350.
Hartshorn, J., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.
Huang, P. W. (2014). A study of grammatical errors in EFL English major’s writing. (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yulin University of Science and Technology, Yulin.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217-230.
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2). 171-182.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z. H. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.
Kassim, A., & Lee, L. N. (2014). Investigating the efficacy of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on the accurate use of prepositions in written work. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 119-130.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77). London, UK: Academic Press.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London, UK: Longman.
The Language Training & Testing Center (LTTC). (2013). General English Proficiency Test. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27th, 2013, from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/teacher/geptr_e.htm
Lee, H. Y. (2007). Effects of student-teacher dialogue journals (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
Lee, W. J. (2008). Grammatical errors in university EFL writings in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei.
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R.M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp 111–137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
Long, M. H. (1996).The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., & Yang (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235-263.
Mackey. A (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85-110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (2009). Introducion. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspective on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Routledge.
Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250-1257.
Minster of Education (MOE), (2013). Grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines. Retrieved October 30th, 2013, from http://www.k12ea.gov.tw/ap/sid17_law.aspx
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 232-255). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 182-206). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’s uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Santos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (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.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-157.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2009). Interaction research in second/foreign language classrooms. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspective on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 157-175). New York, NY: Routledge.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G, Cook & B, Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321-331.
Wu, H. P., & Garza, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context – A study of error analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6), 1256-1262.
Yeh, S. F. (2008). Errors analysis of picture-cue English compositions of students in vocational high schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.
Yu, Y. Y. (2010). The combined effects of peer and teacher feedback on English writing ability and writing apprehension through journal writing exchange: A case study on Taiwanese junior high school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taipei.
Zheng, C., & Park, T. J. (2013). An analysis of errors in English writing made by Chinese and Korean university students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(8), 1342-1351.