臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來，口語修正回饋在第二語言口語課室中被深入及廣泛地討論，其中最廣為研究的議題包括口語修正回饋的類型、實施時機、施後效果等。然而，鮮少有研究以教師的教學認知的角度來探討該議題，也甚少有研究以中學為研究之場域。本研究以Borg (2006) 所提出的教師教學信念要素之架構 (Elements and Processes in Language Teacher Cognition) 為基礎，以個案研究方式探討一位高中英語教師對口語修正回饋之教學信念與實務及學生感受。研究資料經由課堂觀察、教師訪談、學生問卷調查及學生訪談彙整而成。該教師的口語修正回饋之教學實務根據Lyster 及Ranta (1997)所提出的分類方法分析而來，其教學信念及與教學實務之間的關係和影響因素則由訪談資料經由修改後的Borg (2006)所提架構分析彙整而來。
　　本研究發現，英語口說教師在其口語修正回饋之教學認知與實務上除了會受到先前語言學習經驗、師資培育訓練、以及教學環境因素影響外，教師多年來累積的教學經驗更是具備相當的影響力。其中，教學環境因素包括家長因素、學校及政府政策因素、學生特質、及課程導向更可能為造成教師教學認知與實務不相符的主要因素。另外，本研究發現重述修正(recast)最廣為英語口說教師所使用，而發音錯誤則為最常被修正的錯誤類型，此發現之原因可能為教師礙於課堂時間限制所作之決策。最後，本研究也探查學生感受並發現學生對於口語修正回饋有正面的肯定，但對於其教師所實施的口語修正回饋不勝滿意。
　　本研究提出下列建議，首先，英語教師可考慮嘗試不同方式修正學生口說錯誤，例如同儕評量或紙本評量，以消弭學生可能產生的負面感受。第二，教師專業課程可提供口頭修正回饋之相關訓練課程或示範教學，協助教師學習所需技巧及提供教師練習機會，使其在實際課室內的教學實務更能切合學生需求，進而增益其學習效果。

Research related to oral corrective feedback (CF) in second language classrooms has been widely examined in the past decades, including what types of oral CF should be provided (e.g. Al-Faki, 2013; Tomczyk, 2013), when oral CF should be initiated (e.g. Gumbaridze, 2013), or how effective oral CF is on learners’ performance (e.g. Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009). However, limited research has been conducted to examine oral CF practices from teachers’ cognitive perspectives. A case-study approach was adopted to investigate a high school English teacher’s cognitions and practices of oral CF based on Borg’s theoretical framework and to explore students’ perception of CF and their attitudes towards teacher’s oral CF practices in a speaking classroom. The data were gathered from weekly classroom observations, interviews with the teacher (formal, after-class informal and follow-up interviews), a questionnaire for the students, and interviews with volunteer students. Lyster and Ranta’s taxonomy (1997) were adapted to analyze the types of oral CF. Borg’s teacher cognition framework (2006) served as the analytical framework to retrieve the teacher’s cognition and her CF practice.
The findings revealed that the teacher’s cognitions were influenced by her experiences of schooling, professional coursework, teaching experiences, and the contextual factors in her speaking course. Her teaching experiences accumulated throughout her teaching career projected considerable impact on her cognition and practice of oral CF. In addition, the contextual factors including parents’ concerns, school or government factors, student traits, and course context were also influential factors in the teacher’s cognitions and practices. In addition, the contextual factors might be the possible reasons causing the inconsistency between the teacher’s cognition and her practice of oral CF. The results also found that recast was used most in the speaking classroom and pronunciation problems were fixed most by the teacher due to the time-efficient nature of the two CF types that the teacher perceived. Finally, the results also revealed that the students generally perceived oral CF as an important tool for speaking learning but they revealed their dissatisfaction with their teacher’s oral CF practices.
The present study suggested two pedagogical implications. First, English speaking teachers may consider implementing different CF approaches, such as peer review to avoid causing possible negative feelings from the students. Second, teacher training programs may consider offering related courses or teaching practicum for teachers to experiment their cognitions and carry out suitable teaching approaches based on knowledge acquired in the program.

中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Purposes of the Study 4
Research Questions 4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 5
Oral Corrective Feedback 5
The Definition of Oral CF 5
Types of Oral CF 6
Merits of CF 9
Demerits of CF 11
Teacher and Student Perception of Oral CF Practice 13
Teacher Cognition 14
Definition of Teacher Cognition 15
Research on Teacher Cognition 17
CHAPTER THREE METHOD 22
Participants 22
Recruitment of Teacher Participants 22
Teacher Participant: Yi-Chun 24
The Student Participants 25
Study Setting 25
Data Collection 26
Classroom Observations 26
Oral Corrective Feedback 27
Interviews with the Teacher 27
Student Questionnaire 29
Interviews with the Students 30
Follow-up Interview with the Teacher 31
Data Collection Procedure 31
Data Analysis 34
Analysis of the Interviews with the Teacher 34
Analysis of Observation Notes 36
Analysis of Audio Transcripts from Classroom Observations 36
Analysis of the Questionnaire 39
Analysis of the Interviews with the Students 39
Trustworthiness 40
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 41
Yi-Chun’s Cognitions 41
Cognition 1: English Teaching should Emphasize Learner Autonomy 42
Cognition 2: Speaking Ability should be Recognized and the Teaching of Speaking should Emphasize on the Structure of the Speech 44
Cognition 3: Oral CF Plays an Important Role in the Improvement of Speaking 46
Factors Influencing Yi-Chun’s Cognitions 50
Schooling 50
Professional Coursework 53
Teaching Experiences 55
Contextual Factors 57
Yi-Chun’s Teaching Practice 63
Enactment of Curriculum 63
Classroom Practice 64
Oral CF Classroom Implementation 67
Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of English Speaking Classes and Oral CF 70
Students’ Perceptions of the Intervention of Oral CF 71
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 86
Discussion 86
Recast and explicit correction as the most frequently used types of oral CF 86
Pronunciation as the most frequently corrected error type 88
The interwoven relationship between the teacher’s cognitions and practices 89
Inconsistencies between Yi-Chun’s cognitions and practices 91
Gaps between students’ perception and the teacher’s practice 94
Conclusion 96
Summary of the Study 96
Pedagogical Implications 97
Limitations of the Study 98
Recommendations for Future Research 99
REFERENCES 100
APPENDICES 106
Appendix A Consent Form for the Teacher 106
Appendix B Consent Form for the Students 109
Appendix C Interview Questions for Formal Interview I 110
Appendix D Interview Questions for Formal Interview II 112
Appendix E Interview Questions for Formal Interview III 114
Appendix F Interview Questions for Follow-up Interview 115
Appendix G Student Questionnaire 116
Appendix H Questions for Student Interviews (For Student A) 125
Appendix I Examples of the Teacher’s Cognitions 132

Al-Faki, I. M., & Siddiek, A. G. (2013). Techniques used by teachers in correcting students’ oral errors in an Omani boys school. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1770-1783.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(04), 543-574.
Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher. Language awareness, 12(2), 81-95.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics,25(2), 243-272.
Borg, M. (2001).Teachers' beliefs. ELT journal, 55(2), 186-188.
Borg, M. (2004).The apprenticeship of observation. ELT journal, 58(3), 274-276.
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38.
Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching.System, 27(1), 19-31.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12(2), 96-108.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching,36, 81-109.
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers.Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3-31.
Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001).Making sense of language teaching: Teachers' principles and classroom practices.Applied linguistics,22(4), 470-501.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners'errors. Language learning,27(1), 29-46.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chern, C. L. (2002). English language teaching in Taiwan today. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 97-105.
Dekeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The modern language journal, 77(4), 501-514.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Leaner response as language awareness. The modern language Journal,94(1), 1-21.
El Tatawy, M. (2002).Corrective feedback in second language acquisition.Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1-19.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Erlam, R. (2006).Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(02), 339-368.
Fanslow, J. F. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work.Foreign language annals, 10(5), 583-593.
Feryok, A. (2010). Language teacher cognitions: Complex dynamic systems?.System, 38(2), 272-279.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998).Reconceptualizing the knowledge‐base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.
Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge.TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.
Gumbaridze, J. (2013). Error correction in EFL speaking classrooms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1660-1663.
Han, Z. (2001). Fine‐tuning Corrective Feedback. Foreign Language Annals,34(6), 582-599.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007).The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?.International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 255-270.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.
Kam, H. W. (2002). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview.Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 1-22.
Kim, J. H. (2005). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition.Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-24.
Kubanyiova, M. (2012). Pulling it together: an integrated model of language teacher conceptual change. In M. Kubanyiova(Eds.), Teacher development in action: Understanding language teachers' conceptual change(pp. 54-65). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research.New York: Longman.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 112-127.
Lee, E. J. E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230.
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 111-137.
Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta‐Analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.
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(3), 271-283.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition, In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatis (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms.Language learning, 48(2), 183-218.
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009).Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction.Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(02), 269-300.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010).Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 32(02), 265-302.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott's ‘What's wrong with oral grammar correction’. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457-467.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013).Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(01), 1-40.
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2007).Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 129-152.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(04), 471-497.
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan.System,39(4), 451-467.
Mullock, B. (2006). The pedagogical knowledge base of four TESOL teachers.The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 48-66.
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43-63.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of second language writing,7(2), 113-131.
Ng, J. & Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match their classroom practices? A Singapore case study. In D. Deterding, A. Brown and E. L. Low (eds), English in Singapore: Research on Grammar (pp. 128-137). Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332.
Panova, I., &Lyster, R. (2002).Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices.System, 37(3), 380-390.
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., &O’Donovan.B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.
Rahimi, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 45-54.
Rassaei, E. & Moinzadeh, A. (2014).Recasts, metalinguistic feedback, and learners’ perceptions: A case of Persian EFL learners.Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 39-55.
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development.System, 41(2), 472-483.
Richards, J. C. & Pennington, M. (1998).The first year of teaching. In J. C. Richards (Eds.), Beyond training (pp. 173-190). Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC journal, 39(2), 158-177.
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79.
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today?. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.
Sakai, H. (2004). Roles of output and feedback for L2 learners’ noticing. JALT Journal, 26(1), 25-53.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364.
Schulz, R. (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.
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(02), 203-234.
Su, Y. C. (2006). EFL teachers’ perceptions of English language policy at the elementary level in Taiwan.Educational Studies, 32(3), 265-283.
Tedick, D. J., & de Gortari, B. (1998).Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1(3), 1-6.
Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., &Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspectives. Educational Research Review, 9, 1-15.
Tomczyk, E. (2013). Perceptions of oral errors and their corrective feedback: Teachers vs. students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 924-931.
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993).Explicit instruction and input processing.Studies in second language acquisition, 15(02), 225-243.
Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001).Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research,35(5), 441-461.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Wang, W. P. (2008). Teaching English to young learners in Taiwan: Issues relating to teaching, teacher education, teaching materials and teacher perspectives (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Waikato). Retrieved from http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2547
Warford, M. K., & Reeves, J. (2003). Falling into it: Novice TESOL teacher thinking. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 9(1), 47-65.
Westrick, J. M., & Morris, G. A. (2015). Teacher education pedagogy: disrupting the apprenticeship of observation. Teaching Education, 1-17.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language awareness, 17(1), 78-93.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293-314.