臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討間接寫作修正回饋前後對大學生英語寫作精確性之效益，以及探索學生對兩種不同間接性寫作回饋的看法態度以及偏好。
本研究以淡江大學二十六位大一學生為研究對象。在為期十二週的寫作活動期間，每個學生都須完成六次寫作，前測、兩篇作業、兩篇修正以及後測。基於前測的結果，學生被分成了兩組，有代碼以及無代碼的間接性寫作修正回饋組別。此外，學生須完成前測問卷以及後測問卷，前測問卷目的為調查學生個人背景，後測問卷旨在調查學生對間接性寫作回饋的看法。再者，為了更了解學生對間接性寫作回饋的看法施行了後續訪談。
本研究的主要發現摘述如下：
一、 對於學生的英語寫作精確性，在實驗施行前後，學生是有進步地。此外，學生的英語精確性基於三個面向來做評斷，用字、句型結構以及文法、大寫、拼字和標點符號。在兩組學生中，無代碼回饋的學生在文法、大寫、拼字和標點符號此面向有顯著進步，而有代碼回饋的組別則無。
二、 對於學生的英語寫作精確性，在作業以及修正之間，有代碼以及無代碼回饋的組別皆有能力產出相較作業來說顯著更加精確的修正。
三、 調查了學生對於間接性寫作回饋的看法並且發現學生總地來說認為他們所收到的間接性寫作修正回饋(有代碼或無代碼)對於他們的英語寫作精確性是有用且有幫助的。此外，許多學生反饋他們所收到的間接性寫作回饋種類讓他們有自信產出更好的修正。
四、 學生對於錯誤修正的偏好也受到了探討並發現當學生被給予了除了間接性寫作回饋外的選擇，學生們表示他們會比較喜歡收到直接性寫作回饋加上代碼在他們的寫作當中。
根據以上研究結果，研究者提出四點有關英文寫作老師可運用間接性寫作回饋在課堂中的建議：
一、 間接性寫作回饋(有代碼及無代碼)可逐漸地增進學生的英語寫作精確性，因此，對於英語寫作教師來說，若他們想要在寫作課堂上使用間接性寫作回饋，他們可有兩個選擇，有代碼以及無代碼的寫作回饋。
二、 有代碼及無代碼寫作回饋在某種程度上可增進學生英語寫作精確性。英語寫作教師當在改正學生錯誤時，可採用間接性寫作回饋以省時並且提升學生英語寫作精確性。
三、 學生普遍認為他們所收到的有代碼或無代碼寫作回饋是可接受並且合理的。因此，英語寫作教師可相對有信心地套用間接性寫作回饋至課堂中。
四、 學生普遍偏好收到直接性寫作回饋加上錯誤代碼而非間接性寫作回饋，因此，英語寫作教師可考慮採納錯誤代碼在課堂中鑑於學生對其評價。

The purposes of the present study are to investigate the effects of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on students’ English writing accuracy before and after the treatments. In addition, students’ perceptions regarding their attitudes and preferences after receiving two types of indirect WCF were explored.
The participants in the present study involved 26 freshmen students from Tamkang University (TKU). During the 12-week writing practice, each student was required to complete six pieces of writings, which were a pre-test, two assignments, two revisions, and a post-test. Based on the results of pre-test, students were divided into two groups, coded and uncoded indirect WCF groups. Moreover, a pre-study questionnaire and a post-study questionnaire were delivered before and after the treatments in order to investigate students’ personal background and their perceptions of indirect WCF respectively. Furthermore, in order to have an in-depth understanding for students’ perceptions of indirect WCF, follow-up interviews were conducted.
The findings of the present study are summarized as follows. First, regarding participants English writing accuracy based on the rating scale, it was found that students made improvement before and after the treatments. In addition, students’ English writing accuracy was assessed based on the rating scale’s three aspects (word choice, sentence structure, and grammar, capitalization, spelling and punctuation), and it was found that students in the uncoded group made significant improvement in the aspect of grammar, capitalization, spelling, and punctuation whereas the coded group did not. Second, in terms of English writing accuracy based on the percentage of error free T-unit, from assignments to revisions, both coded and uncoded groups were able to produce significantly more accurate pieces of revisions based on the given coded/uncoded WCF. Third, students’ perceptions of indirect WCF were investigated and it was discovered that students generally considered the type of indirect WCF (coded/uncoded) they received to be useful and helpful in improving their English writing accuracy. Furthermore, most of the students reflected that the type of indirect WCF they received made them confident in producing better revisions. Fourth, in addition to students’ attitudes toward indirect WCF, students’ preferences for error corrections were also explored, and it was revealed that when students were given choices other than indirect WCF, they expressed that they would prefer to receive direct WCF with codes in their writings.
On the basis of the findings in the present study, four pedagogical implications are proposed as follows. First, indirect WCF (coded and uncoded) could gradually facilitate students’ English writing accuracy. Therefore, for English writing instructors, if they consider utilizing indirect WCF in their writing classes, they could have two options, coded and uncoded indirect WCF. Second, coded and uncoded WCF could help students to improve their English writing accuracy to a certain extent. English writing instructors could adopt indirect WCF while giving students error corrections to save time and enhance students’ English writing accuracy. Third, students generally considered coded/uncoded WCF they received to be acceptable and fair. Therefore, English writing instructors could be relatively more confident in incorporating indirect WCF into teaching of English writing. Fourth, it was revealed that students preferred to receive direct WCF with codes rather than indirect WCF. Hence, for EFL English writing instructors, students’ appraisal for error codes could be taken under consideration when giving WCF.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background and Motivation 1
Statements of the Problem 5
Purposes of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 7
Limitations of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 8

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
An Overview of Written Corrective Feedback 10
Introduction to Written Corrective Feedback 10
Types of Written Corrective Feedback 12
The Benefits of Written Corrective Feedback 13
Written Corrective Feedback 14
Indirect and Direct Written Corrective Feedback 14
Coded and Uncoded Written Corrective Feedback 16
Written Corrective Feedback Facilitation on Writing Accuracy 19
Perceptions of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 21
Students’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback in General 21
Students’ Perceptions of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 22
Students’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback 24

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Participants 27
Instruments 28
A Pre-study Questionnaire 29
Writing Accuracy Pre-test and Post-test 29
A Post-study Questionnaire 29
A Semi-structured Interview Form 30
Narrative Writing Prompts 31
Criteria for Measuring Students’ Writing Accuracy 31
A Code Chart 32
A Rating Chart 32
Study procedure 33
Data Analysis 36
Quantitative Analysis 36
Qualitative Analysis 37

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Effects of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Students’ English Writing Accuracy 38
Students’ English Writing Accuracy before and after the Treatments Based on the Rating Scale 39
Coded and Uncoded Groups’ English Writing Accuracy before and after the Treatments Based on the Rating Scale 43
Analysis of Students’ English Writing Accuracy Based on the Rating Scale’s Three Aspects 45
Students’ English Writing Accuracy before and after the Treatments Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit 49
Coded and Uncoded Groups’ English Writing Accuracy before and after the Treatments Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit 52
Comparisons of the Coded and Uncoded Groups’ English Writing Accuracy in Treatments Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit 54
Students’ Perceptions of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 56
Students’ Attitudes toward Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 56
Problems Students Encountered when Writing Revisions 62
Students’ Preferences for Written Corrective Feedback 68
Students’ Suggestions for Future Written Corrective Feedback Writing Activities 72

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions 77
Pedagogical Implications 79
Suggestions for Future Research 81

REFERENCES 83
APPENDICES
Appendix A: A Consent Form 88
Appendix B: A Pre-Study Questionnaire 90
Appendix C: A Post-Study Questionnaire 91
Appendix D: A Semi-Structured Interview Form 94
Appendix E: Descriptive Writing Prompts 96
Appendix F: A Writing Sheet for Students 100
Appendix G: A Code Chart for Raters 101
Appendix H: A Code Chart for Students 102
Appendix I: A Rating Scale 103

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Students’ English Writing Accuracy from the Rating Scale in All Four Writings 39
Table 2: The Frequencies and Percentages of the Students’ English Writing Accuracy Based on the Rating Scale from Pre-test to Post-test 40
Table 3: Coded and Uncoded Groups’ English Writing Accuracy Based on the Rating Scale from Pre-test to Post-test 44
Table 4: Comparisons of Students’ English Writing Performance in Word choice, Sentence Structure, and GSCP before and after the Treatments 46
Table 5: Comparisons of Coded Group’s English Writing Performance in Word Choice, Sentence Structure, and GSCP before and after the Treatments 47
Table 6: Comparisons of Uncoded Group’s English Writing Performance in Word Choice, Sentence Structure, and GSCP before and after the Treatments 48
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Students’ English Writing Accuracy Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit in All Four Writings 50
Table 8: The Frequencies and Percentages of the Students’ English Writing Accuracy Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit from Pre-test to Post-test 51
Table 9: Coded and Uncoded Groups’ English Writing Accuracy Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit from Pre-test to Post-test 53
Table 10: Comparisons of Coded Group’s Writing Accuracy in Assignments and Revisions Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit 54
Table 11: Comparisons of Uncoded Group’s Writing Accuracy in Assignments and Revisions Based on the Percentage of Error Free T-unit 55
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics of Item 1 to 3, and Item 6 to 9 of Students’ Attitudes toward the Received Feedback 57
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Coded and Uncoded Groups’ Responses for Item 4 63
Table 14: Descriptive Statistics of Post-Study Questionnaire’s Item 3, 8, 9, and 10 68
Table 15: Descriptive Statistics of Post-Study Questionnaire’s Item 11 and 12 73

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The flowchart of the present study’s procedure. 35

Ahmadi-Azad, S. (2014). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective
feedback types on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 4(5), 1001-1008.
Ahmad, S., Hassan, M. U., Qureshi, M. B., & Qurashi, M. I. (2015). A comparative study of
the effectiveness of direct feedback and indirect feedback methods for Urdu EFL
learners writings. International Journal of English and Literature, 6(7), 114-122.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and
teachers prefer and why?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 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(2), 102-118. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
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. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
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, 267-296. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63(2),
97-107.
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. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Krause, D. S. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic
written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System,
39(2), 229-239. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on
form versus content. Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom, 9, 178-190.
Ferris, D. (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. (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., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for
individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,22(3), 307-329.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
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.
doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in
task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written
corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System,
53, 24-34. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in
studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1),
40-53. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective
feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 30, 31-44. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2
Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.
Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). “I just want to do it right, but it's so hard”: A novice
teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 27, 19-36.
Kara, S. (2013). Writing Anxiety: A Case Study on Students’ Reasons for Anxiety in
Writing. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1), 103-111.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language
Journal, 66(2), 140-149.
Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
Lee, I. (2008b). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the
effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 30, 66-81. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working
Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15(1), 65-79.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional
responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53-72.
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.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student
perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
Mubarak, M. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: a study of practices and
Effectiveness in the bahrain content. Unpublished Dissertation. University of
Sheffield.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing
research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition
of L2 grammar. In Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Salimi, A., & Valizadeh, M. (2015). The Effect of Coded and Uncoded Written
Corrective Feedback on the Accuracy of Learners Writing in Pre-intermediate
Level. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(3),
116-122.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative
competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd, (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language
Acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.



Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In
W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I.
Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737).
Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Suh, B. R. (2014). The effectiveness of direct and indirect coded written feedback in English
as a foreign language. Language Research, 50(3), 795-814.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing
classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect
corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL 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.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC
Journal, 38(1), 38-52.