臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
這篇研究主要是要調查錯誤類型、錯誤訂正的類型和在以英語為外語學習的國小教室中糾正回饋對於學習者領會所帶來的影響，另外也探究老師跟學生的糾正回饋喜好。此外探討出學生接受糾正回饋後所反應出的學習態度跟焦慮對於學習者領會產生的影響。
這篇研究的對象是三個班級分別來自高雄市光華國民小學、高雄市前金國民小學、台東縣賓茂國民小學。三個班級觀察並記錄八節課然後研究者分析口語錯誤、糾正回饋類型跟學習者領會的語言資料。之後學生填寫對於糾正回饋的學習態度之問卷。訪談得知老師對於糾正回饋的看法而去比較學生對於糾正回饋的態度。最後研究者分析出學生態度對於學習者領會的影響。
根據資料分析出來的結論總結如下。第一、學生最常犯的口語錯誤是發音錯誤然後是字彙錯誤、學習後的沉默、錯誤的事實、構詞錯誤、以及句法錯誤。第二、老師傾向使用重組或者後設語言線索去糾正發音錯誤，用引導跟重複學生錯誤去解決詞彙錯誤。至於訂正語言事實的錯誤、構詞錯誤、句法錯誤跟學生保持沉默沒回應等等，此篇研究無法提供較多的資料去解釋老師會使用哪種最有效的糾正方式但是提供了可以解決的方式。第三、明確的訂正、引導跟同儕訂正可以引導出百分之百的學習者領會成功率。第四、老師最喜歡的訂正方式是重組。第五、學生糾正後是否會產生焦慮則表現中立態度，他們不確定會如何反應。除了研究問題的發現之外，研究結果發現教師使用糾正回饋認知不同於實際運用糾正回饋顯示出老師不確定他們上課所使用的糾正方式。
根據研究結果研究者提供給國小英語教師的四項教育上的建議。第一、英語教師應該在處理學生沉默狀況時要給予鼓勵。第二、英語教師應該根據錯誤類型、糾正的效果或者學生的喜好而採用適合的糾正回饋。第三、教師應該關切學生接受糾正回饋後成功的學習者領會更甚於擔心糾正回饋會給予學生焦慮的感受。第四、教師應該要實施教學理念。
未來的研究裡建議找多點教師並且拉長觀察時間。在調查學生對於糾正回饋的學習態度前應該要先知道他們的程度。根據此研究結果學生保持沉默這問題需要再更深入的調查。最後，找不同年紀的研究對象來比較成人跟小孩其接受糾正回饋的成效。

ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study is to investigate errors types, the patterns of error correction and the influence of corrective feedback on learner uptake in the EFL classroom context at the elementary level in Taiwan. In addition, the teachers and students’ preferences of corrective feedback were explored. Besides, students’ learning attitudes after responses to corrective feedback and the influence of anxiety on learner uptake are explored.
The subjects of this study were three classes from Guong-Hua Elementary School in Kaoshiung City, Chiang-chin Elementary School in Kaoshiung City, and Bin-Mou Elementary School in Taitung County. The three English classrooms were observed and recorded for eight sessions. Then, the researcher analyzed the linguistic data of speaking errors, types of corrective feedback, and learner uptake. Afterwards, the students answered a questionnaire on their attitudes to types of corrective feedback. Teachers’ perspectives on corrective feedback were then interviewed and compared with students’ attitudes toward corrective feedback. Finally, the researcher analyzed the influence of students’ learning attitudes on learner uptake.
Based on the data analyses, the findings of the study are summarized as follows. First, the most frequent speaking errors by students are phonological errors, followed by lexical errors, silence, factual errors, morphological errors, and syntactical errors. Second, teachers tended to use recast and metalinguistic clues to correct phonological errors; elicitation and repetition for lexical errors; as for correction following factual errors, morphological errors, syntactical errors, and silence (no responses from students), this study can’t offer more data to explain which corrective feedback is the most frequently used by teachers but offered the way of solving factual errors, morphological errors, syntactical errors, and silence. Third, explicit correction, elicitation and peer correction can lead to 100.00% success rate of learner uptake. Fourth, teachers’ first preference for corrective feedback is recast. Fifth, students express neutral opinions toward anxiety about corrective feedback. They were not sure about how they reacted to corrective feedback. In addition to the findings of the research questions, the finding of the difference between the teachers’ cognition and real application to oral correction revealed that teachers were not sure what they used in class.
Based on the results of the study, the researcher proposed four pedagogical implications for elementary English teachers. First, English teachers are supposed to offer encouragement when facing students’ silence. Second, English teachers should adopt appropriate corrective feedback based on the types of speaking errors, the efficacy on correction, or even students’ preference. Third, teachers should care about successful learner uptake after students receiving corrective feedback rather than worry that the corrective feedback will bring anxiety to students. Fourth, teachers should put the teaching theory into their practice.
For further research, a larger number of teachers and a longer period of experiment time are recommended. Before investigating students’ learning attitudes to corrective feedback, it is suggested that the researcher know the proficiency of students. In addition, the problem of students keeping silence needs to be investigated deeply. Last but not least, more groups of participants of different ages can be included to compare the effect of corrective feedback on adults and children.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Motivation 1
Statements of the Problem 4
Purposes of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Limitation of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 11
Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching 11
Error Types 13
Types of Error Correction 15
Learner Uptake--Noticing and Awareness 20
Timing for Error Correction 23
Efficacy of Corrective Feedback 24
Comparison between Explicit Corrective Feedback and Implicit Corrective Feedback 25
Teacher’s Preference for Corrective Feedback in Language Classrooms 30
Teachers'' Preference for Corrective feedback30
Affective Filter in Corrective Feedback 32
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 37
Participants 37
Data Collection 39
Classroom recording 39
Classroom Observation 40
The Questionnaire 40
Interviews 41
Data Analysis 42
The Coding System of the Types of Speaking Errors 45
The Coding System of the Types of Corrective Feedback 45
The Coding System of the Types of Learner Uptake 46
Triangulations 46
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48
Types of Students’ Speaking Errors 48
Corrective Feedback in English Classrooms 50
Distribution of Corrective Feedback Used by Teachers 51
Choice of Corrective Feedback Attributed to Teacher’s Belief 54
Difference between Second Corrective Feedback and First Corrective Feedback 58
Types of Corrective Feedback Following Speaking Errors 60
Learner uptake 70
Successful Uptake Following Different Types of Corrective Feedback 70
Effect of Corrective Feedback on Correcting Speaking Errors 72
Students’ Learning Attitudes Toward Corrective Feedback 75
Students’ Preference of Corrective Feedback 76
Students’ Attitudes Toward Corrective Feedback 78
Influence of Students’ Attitudes on Successful Learner Uptake 80
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 83
Summary of the Study 83
Pedagogical Implications 86
Suggestions for Further Studies 89
REFERENCES 92
APPENDIXES 99
Appendix A : Questionnaire for Students (English version) 99
Appendix B : Questionnaire for Students (Chinese version) 101
Appendix C : Interview Questions for the Teacher (English version) 103
Appendix D : Interview Questions for the Teacher (Chinese version) 104
Appendix E : A Classification of Speaking Errors in an EFL Context 105
Appendix F : A Classification of Corrective Feedback in an EFL Context 106
Appendix G : A Classification of Learner Uptake in an EFL Context 107
Appendix H : Sample Description of Classroom Observations 108
Appendix I : Sample Fieldnotes of Classroom Observation 132














List of Tables and Figures

Table
Table 1. Seven basic options for corrective feedback and eight possible features
of corrective feedback 15
Table 2. Types of speaking errors 49
Table 3. The distribution of corrective feedback used by teachers 53
Table 4. The types of corrective feedback used by Miss Sue, Miss Lin and Mr. Guo.55
Table 5. Types of corrective feedback to speaking errors 61
Table 6. Learner uptake 70
Table 7. Successful uptake following different types of corrective feedback 71
Table 8. The effect of corrective feedback on correcting speaking errors 74
Table 9. Students’ preference of corrective feedback 76
Table 10. The percentage of students’ preference for corrective feedback 78
Table 11. Students’ learning attitudes towards corrective feedback 79
Table 12. Successful uptake following different types of corrective feedback 81

Figure
Figure 1. The procedure of error treatment 43

REFERENCES
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.
SSLA, 28, 543-574.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Brown, L. (2008). Language and anxiety: an ethnographic study of international
postgraduate students. Evaluation and Research in Education, 21(2), 75-95.
Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., Dihoff, R. E., & Cook, M. J. (2006). Acquisition and retention of Esperanto: The case for error correction and immediate feedback. The Psychologicai Record, 56, 205-218.
Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and Weak Students'' Preferences for Error Feedback Options and Responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 194-211.
Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair Sequences in Spanish L2 Dyadic Discourse: A Descriptive Study. The Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 380-397.
Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63.
Carpenter, R., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’
interpretations of recasts. SSLA, 28, 209-236.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. SSLA, 15(3),
357-386.
Carr, D., & Felce, J. (2008).Teaching picture-to-object relations in picture-based
requesting by children with autism: a comparison between error prevention and error correction teaching procedures. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 309-317.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner: a question of style. Education & Trainning, 41(6), 294-304.
Chien, M. F. (2008). An elementary school English teacher’s corrective feedback. Unpublished master thesis, National Taipei University of Education.
Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native-normative conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 537-547.
Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A. L., & Marsh, S. (2008). Classwide
interventions effective instruction makes a difference. Teaching Exceptional children, 40, 24-30.
Dekeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1-46.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback
and the acquisition of L2 grammar. SSLA, 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language
acquisition. SSLA, 28, 575-600.
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence -The roles of linguistic
target, length and degree of change. SSLA, 29, 511-537.
Gascoigne, C. (2003). A catalogue of corrective moves in French conversation.
Journal of the French Review, 77(1), 72-83.
Grove, C. (1999). Focusing on form in the communicative classroom: An output-centered model of instruction for oral skills development. Journal of Hispania, 82(4), 817-829.
Haskin, J., Smith, M. L. H. & Racine, M. (2003). Decreasing anxiety and frustration
in the Spanish language classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services NO. ED475518).
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?
International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-270.
Heift, T. (2001). Error-specific and individualised feedback in a web-based language tutoring system: Do they read it? ReCALL, 13(1), 99-109.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16 (2), 416-431.
Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for
spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196-213.
Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange:
Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Journal of Language in Society, 32, 79-104.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. London: Longman.
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error correction as an interactional resource. Journal of
Language in Society, 3, 181-199.
Klein, E. M. (1989). Effects of type and mode of corrective feedback on student performance. University of Cincinnati.
Koichi, S. (2003). Improving our students’ speaking skills: Using selective error
correction and group work to reduce anxiety and encourage real communication (ERIC Document Reproduction Services NO.ED475518).
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implementations. London:
Longman.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development - Beyond negative
evidence. SSLA, 25, 37-63.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lin, Y. H., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among
high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish, Journal of Language Learning, 46(4), 567-611.
Lochtman, K. (2002).Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: how it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.
Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness, The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). International feedback and instructional counterbalance. SSLA, 28, 269-300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Journal of Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. SSLA, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of forms, recasts and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Journal of Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. SSLA, 26, 399-432.
MacKey, A., & Philp. J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
MacKey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? SSLA, 22, 471-497.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’
responses on ESL question development. SSLA, 27, 79-103.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004).Second Language Learning Theories. London. Great Britain.
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Journal of Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 3-8.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(1), 8-22.
Saxton, M., Kulcsar, B., Marshall, G., & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of corrective input: an experimental approach. Journal of Child Language. 25, 701-721.
Saxton, M., Houston-Price, C., & Dawson, N. (2005). The prompt hypothesis: Clarification requests as corrective input for grammatical errors. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 393-414.
Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547–583.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA－ Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Simard, D., French, L., & Fortier, V. (2007). Elicited metalinguistic reflection and second language learning: Is there a link? System, 35, 509-522.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-
203.
Ueno, J. (1998). Learning styles and error correction: How do learning styles affect students’ perceptions towards error correction in a foreign language classroom? (ERIC Document Reproduction Services NO. ED429452)
Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37, 82-98.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. London: Longman.
Xie, F., & Jiang, X. M. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. Journal of US-China Education Review, 4(9), 10-14.
Yan, J. X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China. Journal of Language Learning, 58(1), 151-183.
Yau, O. (1994). Consumer behavior in China: Customer satisfaction and cultural values. New York: Routledge.