臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主旨在於探討從學生偏好及教師實行兩方面看高中英文寫作書寫回饋使用的研究。主要的目的在瞭解：（1）從高中學生的觀點來看，在寫作的過程中學生本身及他們的英文寫作老師各自最重視及最不重視那個部分？（2）對於高中生而言，英語寫作最難的部分為何？其原因為何？（3）學生對於他們作文上面老師的書寫回饋之態度及反應為何？（4）從學生本身及他們老師的觀點來看，在學習寫作中，哪一種教師回饋是學生較喜歡也容易去實行的？（5）老師在透過寫作教學及提供回饋中通常強調作文的哪些部分？（6）老師如何幫助學生處理寫作過程中所提供的回饋？以及（7）教師通常採用哪些方式提供回饋？（也就是說，這樣的回饋是屬於顯明的或隱密的？）
本研究的對象為高雄市兩所公立高中九十四位三年級學生，以及四位現任高中三年級英語教師。本研究的主要工具為一份學生問卷、半結構式學生個別訪談及半結構式教師個別訪談。全部（九十四位）學生均參與問卷的填寫；再以隨機選取的方式選出十位學生參與半結構式個別訪談，而四位教師也都參與結構式個別訪談。所收集到的資料再加以分析，以得到結論。
本研究主要的發現摘要如下：
(1) 學生們自己在寫作時最注意的部分是內容，而最不注意的是標點符
號。此外，他們認為老師在教寫作時最注意的部分是組織與結構，最
不注意的是個人寫作風格。同時，他們認為老師在改作文時，修改的
部分以文法為最多，以標點符號部分為最少。
(2) 對於大多數的高中生而言，英語寫作最難的部分是單字。原因除了是
字彙量不足外，還有就是在用字遣詞方面有困難。
(3) 多數學生認為老師所提供的書寫回饋對於其寫作有幫助，而且有近七
成五的學生樂於收到老師所提供的回饋。
(4) 較多數的學生們喜歡老師直接替他們修改作文上的錯誤，並提供正確
的答案。老師們則認為較多數的學生除了喜歡老師直接替他們圈出錯
誤及提供正確答案之外，也喜歡老師給予較清楚、明確、有建設性並
且有鼓勵性的回饋。
(5) 在寫作教學中，四位受訪老師的關注焦點都在於文章的組織及架構；
在修改學生作文時，主要關注的部分則為組織結構、內容及文法。
(6) 老師除了直接提供學生正確答案之外，也希望學生有不清楚時能直接
問他們。此外，老師們也很鼓勵學生們彼此相互討論，也會找時間針
對學生所犯的不同類型錯誤加以解釋。
(7) 老師們通常都會根據不同的錯誤類型或情況而採行幾種不同方式以提
供學生寫作回饋。這些回饋方式有屬於顯明的，也有隱藏的。
根據以上發現，本研究提供如下建議：
(1) 老師在教英語寫作時應考量到學生對於寫作各方面的需求。
(2) 老師在提供學生作文回饋時，應該多注意內容、組織及結構方面的回
饋，而不是以文法為主的回饋。
(3) 在英語寫作教學過程中，老師可以試著採用「過程─成果」教學法以
提升學生英語寫作能力。
(4) 老師應該使用多元的方法，以幫助學生更有效地處理老師所提供的書
寫回饋。

The purpose of the study is to investigate the use of written feedback in senior high school English writing composition from students’ preferences and teachers’ practices. First, the study attempts to examine what aspects EFL senior high school students, and their teachers give the most and the least attention to in the process of English writing from the students’ perspectives. Second, it also aims to explore which aspect is the most difficult for senior high school students and the reasons. Third, it investigates students’ attitudes and reactions to teacher feedback, and fourth, it investigates the type of teacher feedback which students prefer and find easy to implement from their own and their teachers’ perspectives. Fifth, it examines which aspects of a composition are teachers’ main concerns in teaching English writing and providing feedback, as well as how teachers help their students process the provided feedback. Finally, it explores what methods teachers often adopt in providing feedback and such feedback is overt or covert.
The subjects of the study were 94 third-year students from two municipal senior high schools in Kaohsiung and four teachers, who teach English writing in different senior high schools in Kaohsiung. A student’s questionnaire, a semi-constructed student individual oral interview and a semi-constructed teacher individual oral interview were designed as the major instruments in this study. All of the 94 students answered the student’s questionnaire, whereas 10 of them were randomly chosen to participate the semi-constructed student individual oral interview. The four teachers also participated in the semi-constructed teacher individual oral interview. All the collected data were further analyzed in order to obtain the results.
The major findings of the study are summarized as follows:
(1) The students put the most emphasis on content and paid the
least attention to punctuation. Besides, in teaching
writing, they thought that their teachers put the most
emphasis on organization and structure and the least
emphasis on personal writing style. They also thought that
their teachers paid the most attention to grammar and the
least attention to punctuation when their teachers
corrected the drafts.
(2) For most of the senior high school students in this study,
vocabulary was the most difficult aspect in English
writing. One reason was that they did not have adequate
vocabulary competence. Besides, they had difficulties in
choosing appropriate words.
(3) The majority of the students thought that the provided
teacher written feedback was helpful to their writing;
nearly 75% of them welcomed and accepted such provided
teacher feedback.
(4) Most of the students preferred their teachers to directly
correct their composition errors and provide correct
forms. In addition to identifying the errors directly and
providing correct answers, the teachers, on the other hand,
thought that their students preferred the provided feedback
to be more clear, evident, constructive, and encouraging.
(5) In the teaching of writing, the four interviewed teachers’
main concerns were on organization and structure of a
draft; in correcting students’ compositions, their main
concerns were on organization, structure, content, and
grammar.
(6) Besides providing correct forms directly to students’
drafts, the teachers also hoped their students to ask them
directly if their students had problems understanding the
provided feedback. Also, the teachers encouraged the
students to discuss with their classmates. The teachers
would also find some time to explain different types of
errors to their students.
(7) The teachers often adopted various types of methods to
provide feedback on students’ writing according to
different types of errors or situations. Both overt and
covert feedbacks were included.
Based on the main findings of the study, some suggestions are made as follows:
(1) Teachers should give consideration to students’ focuses or
needs in every aspect of a composition when teaching
English writing.
(2) When providing feedback to students’ compositions,
teachers should put more emphasis on content, organization,
as well as structure. Grammar should not be the only
concern.
(3) In the instruction of English writing, teachers may try to
adopt a process-product approach to improve students’
English writing ability.
(4) Teachers should employ multiple techniques to help students
better process the provided written feedback.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...i
Table of Contents ...v
List of Tables ...ix
List of Figures ...xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background and Motivation ...1
Purpose of the Study ...5
Research Questions ...6
Significance of the Study ...7
Limitations of the Study ...7
Definition of Terms ...8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
Relative Studies on Teacher Feedback in L1 ...11
Relative Studies on Teacher Feedback in L2 ...15
Types of Teacher Feedback in L2 ...17
Functions and Effects of Teacher Feedback on Students'
writing ...23
Students' Attitudes, Preferences, and Reactions on Teacher
Feedback ...29
Summary ...35
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Research Design ...37
Subjects ...37
Instruments ...40
Student's Questionnaire ...40
Semi-constructed Student Individual Oral Interview ...41
Semi-constructed Teacher Individual Oral Interview ...42
Equipment ...42
Procedures ...43
A Pilot Study ...43
Data Collection Procedures ...44
Data Analysis ...47
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction ...49
Results and Discussion of the Questionnaire and Semi-
constructed Student Oral Interview under Research Questions
One to Four ...50
Research Question One ...50
Results ...50
Summary ...57
Discussion ...58
Research Question Two ...60
Results ...60
Summary ...65
Discussion ...66
Research Question Three ...69
Results ...69
Summary ...77
Discussion ...78
Research Question Four ...81
Results ...81
Summary ...85
Discussion ...85
Results and Discussion of the Semi-constructed Teacher Oral
Interview under Research Questions Five to Seven ...88
Research Question Five ...88
Results ...88
Summary ...92
Discussion ...93
Research Question Six ...95
Results ...95
Summary ...101
Discussion ...102
Research Question Seven ...104
Results ...104
Summary ...107
Discussion ...107
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
Conclusion ...109
Pedagogical Implications ...112
Suggestions for Further Studies ...114
REFERENCES ...117
APPENDIX A ...127
APPENDIX B ...131
APPENDIX C ...133
APPENDIX D ...135
APPENDIX E ...139

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, 227-257.
Askew, S. & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops —
linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.). Feedback
for Learning (pp. 1-17). London: Falmer Press.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the
curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27,
395-421.
Boswood, T., & Dwyer, R. H. (1995). From marking to feedback:
Audiotaped responses to student writing. TESOL Journal, 5
(2), 20-23.
Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to
their own texts: A model of teacher response. College
Composition and Communication, 33, 157-166.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and
Teaching (4th Ed.). New York: Longman.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language
learning of variations in written feedback on homework
assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 251-261.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to
written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’
composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15 (2), 1-14.
Clarke, S. (2000). Getting it right — distance marking as
accessible and effective feedback in the primary classroom.
In S. Askew (Ed.). Feedback for Learning (pp. 32-45). London:
Falmer Press.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their
compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner
Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on
compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Classroom (pp.155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL
writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision
after teacher-written comments: texts, contexts, and
individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2), 147-
179.
Cumming, A. (1985). Teachers’ procedures fro responding to the
writing of students of a second language. In M. Maguire & A.
Par (Eds.), Patterns of development (pp. 58-75). Montreal:
Canadian Council of Teachers of English.
Dunn, S, Florio-Ruane, S., & Clark, C. M. (1985). The teacher
as respondent to the high school writer. In S. W. Freedman
(Ed.), The Acquisition of Written Language: Response and
Revision (pp. 33-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to
student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries
on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority
-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10,
235-249.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher commentary
on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on
student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997).
Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and
implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155-182.
Ferris, D. (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., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing
classes: How explicit does it need to be. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Freedman, S. W. (1984). The evaluation of, and response to
student writing: A review. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 247 605).
Freedman, S. W. (1987). Responding to Student Writing. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Gipps, C. (1995). Beyond Testing: Towards a theory of
assessment. London: Falmer Press.
Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (1997). Assessment: A teachers’ guide
to the issues (3rd Ed.). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and the
negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL
Quarterly, 24, 443-460.
Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In C. W.
Bridges (Ed.), Training the New Teacher of College
Composition (pp. 117-124). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Hayes, M. F., & Daiker, D. A. (1984). Using protocol analysis
in evaluating responses to student writing. Freshmen English
News, 13, 1-5.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback:
Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2
composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two
analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2
writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1984). The treatment of error in written
work. In s. McKay (Ed.), Composing in a Second Language (pp.
146-159). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hillocks, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher
comment, and revision in teaching the composing process.
Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 261-278.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New
Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearing house on
Reading and Communication skills and the National Conference
on Research in English.
Hung, S. C. (1998). A case study of college freshmen’s
responses to teacher and peer feedback in English
compositions. Thesis (M. A.) distributed by National Changhua
University of Education.
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal,
44, 279-285.
Hyland, K. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on
individual writer. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (3),
255-286.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and
criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10, 185-212.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998).
Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 7, 307-317.
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and
methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44, 294-304.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of
types of written feedback to the development of second-
language writing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
Klein, E. M. (1989). Effects of type and mode of corrective
feedback on student performance. Ph. D. Dissertation of
University of Cincinnati.
Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on
student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News,
10, 1-4.
Kobayashi, T. (1992). Native and nonnative reaction to ESL
compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 81-112.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory, and
Application. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lalande, J. R. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an
experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written
response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing:
Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error
correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language
Annals, 24, 203-218.
Lockhardt, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer
response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language
Learning, 45, 274-284.
Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the Language Classroom.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Makino, T- Y. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written
compositions. ELT Journal, 47 (4), 337-341.
Mazano, R. J., & Arthur, S. (1977). Teacher comments on student
essays: It doesn’t matter what you say. ERIC Document 147
864.
Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL
composition classes. ELT Journal, 54 (1), 47-53.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’
perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
Oladejo, J. (2002). Academic writing: A process-product
approach. Taiwan, R. O. C.: Lighthouse Publishing Company.
Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. (1997). Writing conferences
and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition.
Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 51-90.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback
on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8
(3), 265-289.
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1991). Perspectives on
Learning. (2nd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom:
Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49-79.
Prather, M. S. (1989). Teacher feedback and student performance
and perceptions of performance: An attributional approach to
reading performance. Ph. D. Dissertation of University of
Pittsburgh.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL students’ reaction
to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-
365.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they
write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19,
229-258.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and
composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers.
Language Learning, 37, 439-468.
Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths
of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 273-292.
Reyes, M. (1991). A process approach to literacy using dialogue
journals and literature logs with second language learners.
Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 291-313.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of
feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality.
TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Schwartz, M. (1983). Revision profiles: Patterns and
implications. College English, 45 (6), 549-558.
Searle, D., & Dillon, D. (1980). The message of marking:
Teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate
grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 233-
242.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a
difference. RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.
Skinner, B. (1969). Contingencies of Reinforcement. New York:
Appleton Century Corft.
Smeke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign
Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College
Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
Sommers, N. (1987). Responding to student writing. In A.
Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in Real Time: Modelling production
processes (pp. 160-169). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: an
exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31,
91-119.
Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing
instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 31-47.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2
writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar
correction in L2 writing
classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8, 111-122.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers
benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9 (2), 147-170.
Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A
tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human Motivation: Metaphors, theories, and
research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Winer, L. (1992). Spinach to chocolate: Changing awareness and
attitudes in ESL writing teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 57-79.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL
students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 79-101.
Zellermayer, M. (1989). The study of teachers’ written
feedback to students’ writing: Changes in theoretical
considerations and the expansion of research contexts.
Instructional Science, 18, 145-165.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer
feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 4, 209-222.