臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

提供立即的電腦化回饋(computerized feedback)是目前英語學習的新趨勢；日前一種自動評分系統已推廣於市面上，此種系統能提供學生有關寫作上組織、文法等建議。根據我們的初步觀察發現，此種系統對於學生作文的文法和組織確有幫助，但對於學生最需要的用字遣詞，卻無法提供有效的建議。因此，本實驗除了繼續研究自動評分系統的效用之外，另外加入一個雙語索引工具(TOTALrecall)來提供學生在寫作上用字的幫助。因此，本研究旨在探討﹝一﹞自動評分系統與﹝二﹞雙語索引系統對於台灣大學生寫作上的影響與幫助，以及學習者對這兩種工具的態度與反應。
共有十九位英語系學生參與本研究。在為期一個學期的實驗中，受試者須完成三篇作文。每篇作文先送進MyAccess自動評分系統進行評分，學生再根據所得到的電腦化回饋進行修改。另外，我們會在每篇作文裡，挑出2-3個用字的錯誤，學生需利用TOTALrecall雙語索引工具進行修正。在實驗進行之前，學生需填寫一份背景問卷，以便我們了解學生利用網路學習英文之情形。在實驗結束之後，學生另需填寫有關MyAccess和TOTALrecall的評估問卷，來讓我們了解學生使用此兩種工具的看法。此外，針對學期中的學習情形，我們設計兩種紀錄表，其一為MyAccess紀錄表，學生可馬上記錄下他們使用MyAccess的情形，另一為TOTALrecall紀錄表，學生需記錄下他們針對寫作與用字錯誤所查之單字。
我們針對學生作文在MyAccess所得到之分數進行統計分析，結果顯示MyAccess的回饋報告(feedback report)確使學生的作文有顯著的進步。學生在評估問卷中也指出MyAccess在內容建構、表達意義與文體結構之建議對於寫作有幫助。另外我們發現，經過查詢TOTALrecall之後，超過一半的用字錯誤都得到修正；除了第一次寫作之外，因為當時系統仍不穩定且學生對於如何操作系統仍不熟悉。TOTALrecall對於修正名詞錯誤最為有效，對於形容詞錯誤修正之效果較不顯著。在期末的TOTALrecall評估問卷中，學生也肯定了TOTALrecall在他們寫作上用字遣詞的幫助。
本研究顯示了自動評分系統和雙語索引工具對於學生寫作上提供了有效的幫助。未來除了繼續改善工具效能之外，也可設計線上練習，針對學生常犯之用字錯誤提供更多的幫助。

Providing immediate computerized feedback to improve students’ writing skill at individualized pace has been a new technological approach developed for English learning. Recently, new automatic grading system which claims to provide diagnostic feedback on all aspects such as organization, word usage, and grammar of an essay is available now. A preliminary observation conducted in the Spring semester of 2003 found that students did benefit from computerized feedback on grammar and organization, but they could not obtain from such system suggestions for word usage, an area in which most EFL students are in great need for help. To meet students’ needs for word usage, the current study introduced to students, in addition to an automatic essay grading system, a bilingual concordancer which is advocated as beneficial for word usage in an EFL context (Lin, 2003). The purpose of this study was thus two-fold in investigating how effective (1) a computerized feedback system and (2) a bilingual concordancer were for college EFL students’ writing, revision, and self-correction of errors.
Nineteen freshmen enrolled in a writing class in a university in northern Taiwan participated in this study in Fall 2003 and were asked to compose three writings along the research process. Two online learning tools were applied to help enhance students’ writing skill--an automatic grading system, MyAccess (http://www.gomyaccess.com) for both grading student writing and providing feedback, and a web-based bilingual concodancer, TOTALrecall (http://candle.cs.nthu.edut.tw/candle) for helping students with word usage problems in their drafts or self-correcting errors highlighted by the teacher. Instruments used were two questionnaires (background and attitude); checklists on which students recorded feedback used from MyAccess and words looked up from TOTALrecall.
The analysis of students’ holistic scores indicated that students’ writing was significantly improved with the help of the feedback report from MyAccess. Also, , students considered MyAccess helpful in providing feedback for revision according to the responses from the evaluation questionnaire As for the effectiveness of TOTALrecall, over half of students’ errors were corrected with the tool, except for the first writing which might result from the instability of the tool and students’ unfamiliarity. In addition, TOTALrecall was found to be most helpful in providing information on word usages for nouns and less so in adjectives. Moreover, as shown in the evaluation questionnaire, students also regarded TOTALrecall useful for providing information on word usage and collocation. They also indicated that the parallel corpus made the learning of English words and meanings easier..
Three pedagogical implications are drown from the current study. First, there should be time allotted for learners’ computer literacy and familiarity with the target tools before using tools for computer assisted learning. Second, instructors should teach the students to make best use of the tools out of classroom so that the limited class hours could be effectively used. Third, bilingual concordancing exercises related to collocations and synonyms could be used to expend and deepen students’ vocabulary capacity.
Future research could continue exploring students’ errors on word usage and enlarging error data based on the findings of the current study. Online error exercises are in need to help students improve their word use in writing. To conclude, it is hoped that the encouraging results from the current study could inspire researchers to continue develop CALL software and at the same time, invite more efforts devoted to the field of CALL.

Table Of Contents
中文摘要 i
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 COMPUTERIZED FEEDBACK FOR WRITING REVISION 3
2.1.1 Early Computerized Feedback 4
2.1.2 Recent Error Diagnosis And Feedback Technology 7
2.1.3 Computerized Diagnostic Feedback 11
2.2 CONCORDANCING 21
2.2.1 Concordancing Learning 22
2.2.2 Bilingual Concordancing 24
2.3 ERROR TYPES 31
2.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 33
Chapter III RESEARCH METHOD 35
3.1 PARTICIPANTS 35
3.2 MATERIALS 36
3.3 INSTRUMENTS 36
3.4 PROCEDURES 38
3.4.1 Overall Sequence & Activities 38
3.4.2 Categorization Of Error Types 41
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 43
Chapter IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46
4.1 BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE 46
4.2 THE USE OF MYACCESS 50
4.2.1 Myaccess Score Analysis 50
4.2.2 Myaccess Checklist 53
4.2.3 Perception Items In Myaccess Evaluation Questionnaire 54
4.2.4. Discussion On Scores Analysis And Students Perception Change On Myaccess 55
4.2.5. Myaccess Evaluation Questionnaire 57
4.2.6. Interview Data About Myaccess 61
4.2.7. Reflection On The Feasibility Of Applying An Online Grading And Feedback System In EFL Writing Classes 61
4.3 THE USE OF TOTALRECALL 65
4.3.1 Totalrecall Checklist 66
4.3.2 Discussion On Students’ Use Of Totalrecall 70
4.3.3 Totalrecall Evaluation Questionnaire 72
4.3.4 Interview Data 76
4.3.5 Reflection On The Effectiveness Of Bilingual Concordancers On Students’ Word Choice In Writing 77
4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY 79
Chapter V CONCLUSION 81
5.1 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 81
5.2 FUTURE RESEARCH 82
5.3 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 83
REFERENCES 86
APPENDICES 91
Appendix A Background Questionnaire 91
Appendix B Evaluation Questionnaire On Myaccess 95
Appendix C Evaluation Questionnaire On Totalrecall 97
Appendix D Checklist For Feedback From Myaccess 99
Appendix E Word Checklist For Totalrecall 100
Appendix F Interview Model Questions 101
Appendix G Results Of The Background Questionnaire 102
Appendix H Coding Of Interview Data 108
Appendix I Key Excerpts From Interview 110
Appendix J Steps in the Use of MyAccess and A Sample Feedback Report on Stduent Writing 112
Appendix K Results Of The Evaluation Questionnaire On Myaccess 125
Appendix L Results Of The Evaluation Questionnaire On Totalrecall 128
Appendix M Error List 131
Appendix N Consent Form 136

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, 227-251.
Chen, H. C. (2001). Diagnosis of difficulties in English writing and suggested
remedial instructional strategies. Selected Papers from the Tenth Internaitonal
Symposium on English Teaching, 300-309.
Chen, H. J. (2000). Developing a web concordancer for English as foreign language learners. ICCE/ICCAI, 1, 340-347.
Chen, L. & Tokuda, N. (2003). A new template-template-enhanced ICALL system for a second language composition course. CALICO Journal, 20, 561-578.
Chung, Gregory K. W. K. & O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (1997). Methodological approaches to online scoring of essays (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418101).
Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25, 301-315.
Cook, V. (1997b). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A.
de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguisitc
perspectives, (pp. 279-299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57, 402-423.
Education Testing Service. (1997). Criterion Student Manual. ETS Technologies.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-319.
Farris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Flowerdrew, J. (1996). Concordancing in language learning. In Martha, C. P. (Ed.), The Power of CALL, (pp. 97-113). Houston, TX: Athelsten.
Foltz, P. W., Laham, D. & Landauer, T. K. (1999). Automated essay scoring:
Applications to educational technology. In proceedings of EdMedia ’99.
Available on-line: http://www-psych.nmsu.edu/~pfoltz/reprints/Edmedia99.html
Gavioli, L. (1997). Exploring texts through the concordancer: Guiding the learner. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelston, T. McEnery and G.. Knowles (eds.), Teaching and Language Corpora (pp.83-99). NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Grauberg, W. (1971). An error analysis in German of first-year university students’. In G.. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (eds.), Applications of Linguistics (pp. 257-263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. P. (2001). A review of composition teachers’ written feedback from learners’ perspectives. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching.
Huffman, D. T. & Goldberg, J. R. (1987). System, 15, 169-175.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Johns, T. (1991b). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the
context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom
concordancing, ELR Journal, 4, 27-45. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Lee, C. Y. (2002). A Study of Using Web Concordancing for English Vocabulary
Learning in a Taiwaness High School Context. Master Thesis. National Tsing Hua
University, June.
L’haire, S. & Faltin, A. V. (2003). Error diagnosis in the freetext project. CALICO, 20, 481-495.
Lin, C. C. (2003). Learning collocations in a bilingual corpus. The Proceedings of
2003 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistic,
250-256.
Liou, H. C. (1993). Investigation of using text-critiquing programs in a process-oriented writing class. CALICO Journal, 10, 17-38.
Liu, C. P. (1993). 我國大學生英文寫作上的錯誤與補救: 用字措辭之初探. Papers from the Tenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 79-101.
Liu, C. P. (1999). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, 483-494. Taipei: Crane.
Meara, P. (1984). The study of lexis in Interlanguage. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. P. R. Howatt (eds.). Interlanguage: Papers in Honour of S. Pit. Corder (pp.225-235). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Vantage Learning Foundation. (2002/2003). MyAccess User’s Guide. Vantage Learning & Summit Intellimetric.
Nash, T., Hsieh, T. L & Chen, S. I. (1989). An evaluation of computer-aided composition. A Collection of Paper Presented in the Sixth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 313-323.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in
peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
Price, G. D. (1989). Grammatik IV: User’s Guide. San Francisco, CA: Reference Software International.
Rightsoft, Inc. (1988). Right Writer: User’s Guide. Sarasota, FL: Right Soft Incorporated.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the
foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 402-426.
Sims, B. R. & DiMaggio, D. (1990). Using computerized textual analysis with technical writing students: Is it effective? The Technical Writing Teacher, 17, 61-68.
Someya, Y. (2000). Online business letter corpus KWIC concordancer and an experiment in data-driven learning/ writing. A paper presented at the 3rd Association for Business Communication International Conference, Doshisha University, August 9, Kyoto, Japan. Down load, 8/6/2003 [on-line]. Available: http://www.kamakuranet.net.jp/~someya/DDW_Report.html
St. John, E. (2001). A case for using a parallel corpus and concordancer for beginners of a foreign language. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 185-203.
Sun, Y. C. (1999). Web-based concordancing: Challenges and opportunities for English language teaching. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching.
Thurstun, J. & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the
vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 267-280.
Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction.
System, 29, 91-102.
Tsui, B. M. (1999). Young ESL writers’ responses to peer and teacher comments in writing. The Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching.
Wang, L. (2001). Exploring parallel concordancing in English and Chinese. Language
Learning & Technology, 5, 174-184.
Warden, C. A. & Chen, J. F. (1998). The application and impact of pc-based software
in evaluating Taiwan students’ writing error types. 朝陽學報, 3, 215-225.
Yang, N. D. (2004) Using MY ACCESS in EFL writing. 2004 International Conference on TEFL and Applied Linguistics, 550-560. March.
Yeh, Y. L. (2003). Vocabulary learning with concordancer for EFL college students. Proceedings of 2003 International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 467-476. 靜宜英文系, May.
Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.