臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討直接回饋和錯誤碼回饋對台灣高中生在修正稿及新篇作文寫作正確性的效果，及其與語言分析能力之間的關聯。研究對象為北台灣某高中二年級三個班共64位學生，其中兩班為實驗組，分別是直接回饋組(23人)、錯誤碼回饋組(19人)，另一班為對照組(22人)。研究工具有二，一為用來評量學習者語言分析能力的語言分析測驗，二為三篇敘述文寫作。研究對象在第一週20分鐘內完成語言分析測驗。所有的寫作測驗皆要求研究對象在50分鐘內根據四格圖片寫一篇至少一百二十字的作文，在第四週收到訂正回饋後，修正稿需在30分鐘內完成，然後立即完成第二篇英文寫作，同樣時間限制為50分鐘內完成，並在五週之後完成第三篇寫作作為延遲後測。實驗中，研究者根據不同實驗組學生給予直接回饋或是錯誤碼回饋，研究者將每一位研究對象前測、修正稿、後測和延遲後測中的寫作錯誤率轉換成百分比做進一步成對樣本t檢驗和單因子變異量分析，以及使用相關係數檢定探討語言分析能力與錯誤率下降之間的關聯性。研究結果顯示就長期而言，直接訂正回饋比錯誤碼回饋更能提升研究對象在延遲後測中的寫作正確性，而在修正稿中，直接訂正回饋組也有助於降低規則性文法錯誤。在錯誤碼回饋組裡，研究對象在第二篇寫作裡的不規則性文法錯誤沒有顯著的下降。此外，此研究也顯示語言分析能力與學生運用訂正回饋修正新篇作文的寫作進步量未達顯著關聯。文末討論此研究在教學上的應用並提出對未來研究的建議。

This study investigated the effects of two different types of written corrective feedback (WCF), direct correction (DC) and error code feedback (EC) and the relation between an individual difference－language analytic ability (LAA) and the effectiveness of WCF on Taiwanese high school students’ writing accuracy in revision and new writing. Three classes of 64 students from a senior high school in Northern Taiwan participated in this study and were randomly assigned to DC group (n=23), an EC group (n=19) and a comparison group (n=22). The instruments included a Language Analysis Test (LAT), used to measure learners’ LAA, and three narrative picture writing tasks. The LAT was administered to all the participants in week one for 20 minutes. Each writing task required the participants to complete the composition with at least 120 words based on a four-picture story strip within 50 minutes. The participants were given 30 minutes to complete revision and write new writing in 50 minutes. In this study, nine types of errors were selected as the target features and were divided to two categories: rule-governed errors and item-based errors. The EC group received symbols that indicated the error types. The DC group received the correct uses of the target features, while the comparison group received no error correction feedback. The participants completed the first writing task as the pretest in week two, a revision of the first writing followed by the second writing task as the posttest in week four. Finally, the delayed posttest was completed in week nine. The error rates by each participant in each piece of writing was calculated and further analyzed with pair-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA. In addition, the relation between LAA scores and the accuracy improvement was analyzed with Pearson correlation test. The findings show that in overall writing accuracy DC was more effective than EC correction in the long term. DC was effective for rule-governed errors in the short term. Besides, EC was not effective for item-based errors in the short term. Furthermore, LAA was not significantly correlated with the effectiveness of WCF on students writing accuracy. At the end of this thesis, pedagogical implications and limitations of this study and suggestions for further research are provided.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUTION 1
Backgroud of the Study 2
Rationale of the Study 10
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 13
Definitions of Terms 14


CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 17
Studies on Focused or Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback 18
Studies on Direct or Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 22
Studies on Error Code Correction 25
Studies on Error Categories 29
Studies on Individual Differences 32
Studies on Language Analytic Ability 36

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY 41
Participants 41
Instruments 42
Target Features 44
Treatment 45
Data Collection Procedure 46
Scoring Criteria and Data Analysis 47

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49
Results 49
Discussion 67
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION 73
Summary of the Findings 73
Pedagogical Implications 74
Limitations of the Study and Suggestion for Further Research 75


REFERENCES 78
Appendix A Language Analysis Test 88
Appendix B The First Writing Task 89
Appendix C The Second Writing Task 90
Appendix D The Third Writing Task 91
Appendix E Table of Error Codes 92
Appendix F Sample of Direct Correction Feedback 93
Appendix G Sample of Error Code Correction Feedback 94
Appendix H Error Rates Calculation List 95

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., 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
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12(2), 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a).The relative effectiveness of different types of direct
written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective
feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to
language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4),
207-217.
Carroll, J. B. (1973). Implications of Aptitude Test Research And Psycholinguistic Theory For Foreign-Language Teaching. Linguistics, 11(112).
doi:10.1515/ling.1973.11.112.5
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C.
Diller (Ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
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(3),
267-296.
doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
Chang, C. J. (1999). A case study of the effect of error correction on the grammatical
structures of three Chinese university students’ EFL writing. Master thesis,
National Tshing Hua University.
Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error Correction and the Training of Language Teachers. The Modern
Language Journal, 59(8), 414.
doi:10.2307/325488
Dekyeser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type
of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
doi:10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehrman M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an
inventive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb01069.x
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press
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
Ellis, R. (2009a). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
Ellis, R. (2009b). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccno23
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in
second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 147-171.
doi:10.1191/1362168805lr161oa
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 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 (Ed.)
Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp.81-104). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in
SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 181-201.
Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, Second Edition.
doi:10.3998/mpub.2173290
Ferris, D. R. & Hedgecock, J. S. (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose,
Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D., and Roberts, B. (2001). Error Feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing,10, 161-184.
Grigornko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Ehrman, M. E. (2000). A Theory-Based Approach to the
Measurement of Foreign Language Learning Ability: The Canal-F Theory and Test. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 390-405.
doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00076
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2002). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). Expanding individual difference research in the interaction
approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing company.
Hartshorm, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P.F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., &
Anderson, N. J. (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy.
TESOL Quarterly,44, 84-109
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (2002) Age, aptitude, and second language learning on a bilingual
exchange. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (pp. 302-329).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huang, Y. P. (2006). The effects of Error Correction on the English Writing of Senior High
School students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Higgs, T. V., & Ariew, R. (1986). Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher. Lincolnwood, IL, U.S.A.: National Textbook.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6
James, C. (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use. Exploring Error Analysis. Longman, Essex.
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. doi:10.1111/modl.12189
Khalili, S. M., Mahdavi, Z. A. & Tajvidi, M (2011) The impact of direct and indirect error treatment on student writing accuracy. Teaching English Language 5(2), 159-185
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305.
doi:10.2307/328724
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Kubota, M. (2001). Error correction strategies used by learners of Japanese when
revising a writing task. System, 29, 467-480.
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An Experiment. Modern
Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some
implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding
error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong
Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Li, S. (2013). The interaction between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and
individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern
Language Journal, 97(3), 634-654.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x0026-7902/13/634-654
Li, S. (2015). The Associations Between Language Aptitude and Second Language Grammar
Acquisition: A Meta-Analytic Review of Five Decades of Research. Applied Linguistics,
36(3), 385-408.
doi:10.1093/applin/amu054
Li, S. (2015). The differential roles of two aptitude components in mediating the effects of
two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C., &
Lado, B. (EDs). Individual differences, L2 development, and language program
administration: From theory to application(pp.32-52) Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In
K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross
cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp.
15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea, UK: Lognostics.
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (2002) Individual differences in working memory, noticing of
interactional feedback and L2 development. Individual Differences and Instructed
Language Learning (pp. 182-209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms:
Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. NY: Routledge.
Pimsleur, P. (1966). The Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. Bethesda, MD: Second
Language Testing.
Raad, B. D., & Kokkonen, M. (2000). Traits and emotions: A review of their structure and
management. European Journal of Personality, 14(5), 477-496.
doi:10.1002/1099-0984(200009/10)14:53.0.co;2-i
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments
on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Reid, J. M., (1998). Responding to ESL student language problems: Error analysis and
revision plans. In P. Byrd & Reid, J. M. (Eds.) Grammar in the composition classroom:
New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its
effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95.
Robinson, P. (1995). “ Aptitude, Awarness and the Fundamental Similarity of Implicit and
Explicit Second Language Learning” Attention and awareness in foreign language
learning. Ed. Richard W. Schmidt. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. 303-58
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics (2005) 25, 46–73
Salami, M.,& Moini, M. R. (2013). The impact of indirect focused and unfocused corrective
Feedback on written accuracy. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and research Volume, 2(4), 32-41

Semke, D., and College, W. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17, 195-202.
Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on
ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 255-283.
Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes
on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in
second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused
written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL
learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Shih, W. R. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of error correction in EFL writing classes for
continuing education university English majors in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan University of Science Technology.
Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of school learning.
Language Testing, 3, 188-221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228600300207
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual
differences and instructed language learning (pp.70-94). Philadelphia, PA; John
Benjamins.
Skehan, P. (2015). Foreign Language Aptitude and Its Relationship with Grammar: A Critical
Overview. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 367-384.
doi:10.1093/applin/amu072
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some rules of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (ed), Input in
Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newberry House.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language
Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & 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., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of
comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62,
1-41.
Vanpatten, B., & Borst, S. (2012). The Roles of Explicit Information and Grammatical
Sensitivity in Processing Instruction: Nominative-Accusative Case Marking and Word
Order in German L2. Foreign Language Annals.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01169.x



Vanpatten, B., & Smith, M. (2014). Aptitude As Grammatical Sensitivity And The Initial
Stages Of Learning Japanese As A L2: Parametric Variation And Case Marking
Corrigendum. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 175-176.
doi:10.1017/s0272263114000813

Vyatkina, N. (2010). The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Teaching
Beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43(4), 671-689.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01108.x
Yalçın, Ş, & Spada, N. (2016). Language Aptitude and Grammatical Difficulty. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 239-263.
doi:10.1017/s0272263115000509
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of Form-Focused Practice and Feedback on Chinese
EFL Learners’ Acquisition of Regular and Irregular Past Tense Forms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 32(4), 235-263
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). Relative Effects of Explicit and Implicit Feedback: The Role of Working
Memory Capacity and Language Analytic Ability. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 344-368.
doi:10.1093/applin/ams044
Yilmaz, Y., & Grananena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language
learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism Language
and Cognition, 19(1), 147-161.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S136672891400090X
Yu, C. L. (2013). The Effects of Focused Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’Acquisition of Articles. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan