臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討不同訂正學生英文作文方式之成效。研究過程中，透過多種訂正反饋的應用：只在錯誤句法下劃底線、劃底線與提示、直接給答案及使用簡短中文解釋幫助學生修正錯誤，並分析其結果。本研究中，九十七位英文主修的大一學生參與本實驗，並被分成四組、給予不同的訂正方法。研究完成後，研究者分析了各篇文章中使用句子的複雜度、使用動詞的形式、整體錯誤比率及多種文法類型的錯誤。實驗後，參與的學生以填寫問卷的方式表達他們對這四種作文訂正方式的看法。結果指出，間接訂正法比直接給學生答案：一、有較高的效益，二、更有助於學生在之後寫作的正確性，三、在多類文法型態中發現顯著不同。在問卷方面，學生們希望老師指出所有的錯誤、寫出提示、讓學生自己可以找出正確的寫法。
關鍵字：錯誤訂正方式，寫作教學，寫作表現，文法錯誤

Although many studies have dealt with different kinds of error corrections and the effects on student writing, a more appropriate way to give feedback is seldom found in previous research. The present study revealed a more effective way to correct students’ English writing essays through a series of practice on various kinds of error treatments: underlining only, underlining with hints, direct correction, and Chinese description only. Ninety two college freshmen majoring in applied English were recruited in the present study in their spring semesters in 2009 and 2010, and divided into four groups treated with different error treatments during the experiment. Then, a number of grammatical elements were analyzed: the complexity of sentences, verb forms, total error percentage, and errors in various grammatical categories. Afterwards, a questionnaire was used to elicit participants’ perceptions about the experiment. Findings were that the more indirect the error treatment was, the more progress students would have. It also uncovered that the Chinese description only helped students correct significantly more errors and further decrease error rates in their subsequent writing. Finally, in the questionnaire, the participants expected that the teachers could (a) point out all the errors, (b) provide hints next to the errors, and (c) allow themselves to make corrections. Pedagogical implications were discussed and some suggestions were provided in the present research.
Keywords: error treatment, writing instruction, writing performance, grammatical errors, preference and perception on error treatments

Abstract (Chinese) i
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
CHAPTER 1 1
Introduction 1
Background and Motivation 1
Problem Statement of the Present Study 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER 2 10
Literature Review 10
Error Treatment and Revision on Writing 11
Error Categorization 13
Direct Correction vs. Indirect Correction 15
Related Studies 23
CHAPTER 3 28
Methodology 28
Patterns of the Error Treatments 28
Subjects 31
Instruments 33
Procedure 39
Data Analysis 41
CHAPTER 4 44
Results and Discussion 44
Overview 44
Effect on Sentence Types with Different Error Treatments
44
Effect on the Uses of Verb Forms with Different Error Treatments 47
Results of Error Percentage Among the Four Groups 49
The Effect of Error Treatments on the Improvement from
Pre- to Post-test 61
Results of the Questionnaire 63
Summary of Findings 65
CHAPTER 5 68
Conclusion 68
Conclusion 68
Pedagogical Implication 75
Suggestion for Future Studies 76
References 79
Appendix A: Student Response Questionnaire (Chinese) 85
Student Response Questionnaire 86
Appendix B: Error Categories and the Examples 88
Appendix C: Examples of the Four Error Treatments 90
Appendix D: Error Treatment Instruction for the First Essay
94
Appendix E: Example Essays for the First Essay 97

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), 227-57.

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, 191-205.

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, 267-96.

Chang, H. (2004). A descriptive study of TVE teachers’ and students’ perspectives on English writing instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, ROC.

Chiang, P. J. (1992). How to improve English composition teaching in Taiwan’s high school: A study of error types and learning strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, ROC.

Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of second Language Writing, 8(2), 147-179.

Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advance ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent error? CATESOL Journal, 8, 41-62.

Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.

Ferris D. R. (1995c). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-39.

Ferris, D. R.(1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.

Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-84.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment or error in second language students writing. Ann Arbor: Univeristy of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing,13, 49-62.

Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.

Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. MI: University of Michigan Press.

Guenette D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Hayward, V. (1993). Assessing students’ writing: A hands-on guide from the northern territory. In C. Bouffler (Ed.), Literacy evaluation: Issues & practicalities (pp. 63-76). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255-76.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1987). Error treatment in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 355-69). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Huang, H. H. (2004). A study of senior high students’ responses to peer and teacher feedback on EFL compositions. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.

Huang, Y. P. (2006). The effects of error treatment on the English writing of senior high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. MI: University of Michigan Press.

Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 219-48). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-49.

Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, 465-77.

Leki, I. (2005). The challenges of teaching EFL writing. In Y. J. Chen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English teaching (pp. 79-90). Taipei, ROC.:Crane.

Lizotte, R. (2001). Quantifying progress in an ESL writing class. MATSOL Currents, 27(1), 7-17.

Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.

O’Malley, J. M. & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Purves, A. C. (1987). Literacy, culture and community. In D. A. Wagner (Ed.), The future of literacy in a changing world (pp. 216-32). New York: Pergamon Press.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 93-91.

Sokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (1st ed., pp. 87-108). New York” McGraw-Hill Contemporary.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-69.

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”:A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-22.

Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effect of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-43.

Winterowd, W. R., & Murray, P. Y. (1985). English writing and skills. San Diego, CA: Cornado.

Wu, C. P. (2003). A study on the use of feedback in senior high school English composition: Students’ preferences and teachers’ practices. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, ROC.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102.

Zamel, V. (1987). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp.267-87).
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.