跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.213.60.33) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/17 04:09
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:曾筱涵
研究生(外文):Hsiao-han Tseng
論文名稱:錯誤回饋對國小高年段學生英文單字拼寫及英文句子書寫成效探討
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Error Feedback on Spelling and Sentence Writing for Upper Level Graders in Elementary School
指導教授:戴雅茗教授
指導教授(外文):Yaming Tai, Ph.D.
口試委員:詹餘靜教授陳淑惠教授
口試委員(外文):Yu-ching Chan Ph.DShu-hui Chen
口試日期:2014-01-16
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:兒童英語教育學系碩士班
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:中文
論文頁數:101
中文關鍵詞:錯誤回饋單字拼寫句子書寫
外文關鍵詞:corrective feedbackspellingsentence writing
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:333
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在探討錯誤回饋的法方法對於國小高年級學生在單字拼寫及句子書寫的能力影響。。本實驗為準實驗研究,對象為170名新北市某國小之六年級學生,研究者根據課本教學進度,設計單字拼寫學習單,以及句子書寫學習單。實驗組接受直接回饋,對照組接受間接回饋,並且兩組學生都必須進行訂正, 進而探討學生在單字拼寫及句子書寫的能力,是否會因回饋方式不同而有影響。分析方法以ANOVA進行三次的學習單成績結果比較,檢視實驗組及對照組在三次的成績表現,是否有所顯著不同,並且進行post-hoc檢視。
研究結果發現,實驗組 (直接回饋) 在句子書寫中的語言正確性 (文法使用) ,有顯著的進步,學生在使用過去簡單式時,在三次的學習單成績表現中,可以看到錯誤有顯著的減少。不但實驗組和對照組的組間可看出顯著差異,包含實驗組組內的比較,以及對照組組內,皆存在顯著的差異和進步。但相較於其他面向 (單字拼寫、格式正確性) ,實驗組 (直接回饋) 和對照組 (間接回饋) 之間並無顯著差異。其中,在單字拼寫部分,因為天花板效應,而妨礙了錯誤回饋可能造成的影響,因此在本研究中,直接回饋及間接回饋對於單字拼寫並看不出有顯著影響。
因此,根據本研究發結果,提出相關具體建議以供英語教學之參考,例如:教師可根據不同的錯誤類型,給予不同的錯誤回饋;另外,錯誤回饋給予的方式,也應考慮到學生的程度,考慮到學生是否能夠自行找出答案。

This study aimed to investigate the effects of corrective feedback on spelling and sentence writing for upper level graders in elementary school. In this quasi- experimental study 170 6th graders, were selected from an elementary school in
New Taipei City. The researcher designed worksheets to collect data including students' word spelling and sentence writing. The experimental group received direct corrective feedback while the control group received the indirect feedback. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and post-hoc test was also conducted to gain further information.
The results showed that the performance of the experimental group was significantly different from the control group in terms of language use (grammar correctness) while in other aspects, the performance of the two groups was not different. In terms of language use, the experimental group performed significantly different when using past tense. Furthermore, the comparisons were both significantly different between groups or within group.
Some implications were drawn based on the results. For instance, according to the results, teachers could use direct feedback when correcting grammar errors and use indirect feedback when encountering other errors, such as mechanics or spelling, to save time and be more efficient; also, when giving feedback, teacher should take students' English level into consideration.

目 次
目次.......………………………………………………….……. .............i
表次............................................................................................................ii
圖次............................................................................................................iii
第一章 緒論………………………………………………….…….....1
第一節 研究動機 …………………………………..……….……...……....1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題……………………………….…………..... .5
第三節 研究重要性………………………………………………………....6
第四節 名詞釋義……………………………………………….…………...7
第二章 文獻探討…………………………….……………………….9
第一節 錯誤回饋發展之理論背景…………………………….….………..9
第二節 錯誤回饋…………………………………………………………....15
第三節 單字拼寫能力……………………………………………………....21
第四節 句子書寫能力…………………………………………………..…..25
第五節 國內外相關研究回顧.........................................................................29
第三章 研究方法…..…………………………………….……..............……...37
第一節 研究對象……………………………………………..............……..37
第二節 研究設計………………………………………………….…...........38
第三節 資料處理與分析………………………………………............…....48
第四章 研究結果與討論.................................................................................51
第一節 單字拼寫結果分析…………………………………............……....51
第二節 英文句子書寫結果分析....……………………………….…...........54
第三節 綜合討論............................................................................................59
第五章 結論與建議...........................................................................................63
第一節 研究與結論………………………………….............………...........63
第二節 研究限制與建議................……………………………….…...........65
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………....69
中文部分....................…………………………………............………............69
英文部分...........................................……………………………….…............70
附件...........................................................................................................76
附件一 單字拼寫學習單..…………………………............………............76
附件二 句子書寫學習單................……………………………….….........85
附件三 錯誤回饋批改實例..........................................................................97



中文部分
吳佩真(2004)。字母拼讀教學對於EFL國中生讀字及拼字表現的影響,國立高雄師範大學碩士論文,高雄市,未出版。
廖月華 (2011)。以頭音、尾韻為主之字母拼讀教學對中學生音韻覺識及拼字能力之影響,台灣科技大學應用外語系碩士論文,台北市,未出版。
詹益智 (2004)。母語音韻覺識在英文拼字與讀字上所扮演的角色, 國立政治大學語言學研究所碩士論文,台北市,未出版。
許凱絨 (2010)。教師回饋對於台灣高中EFL 低成就學生段落寫作之效用:直接訂正法與語意重述法,國立政治大學英國語文學系在職專班碩士論文,台北市,未出版。










英文部分
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL
development. Language Teaching Research 7(3), 347-376.
Al-Hejin, B. (2004). Attention and awareness: Evidence from cognitive and second
language research. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 4(1), 1-22
Arra, C. T., & Aaron, P. G. (2001). Effects of psycholinguistic instruction on spelling performance. Psychology in the School, 38, 357–363.
August, G. (2011). Spelling facilitates good ESL reading comprehension. Journal of
Developmental Education, 35(1); ProQuest, 14-24.
Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL
compositions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Beuningen, C. V. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,
empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, vol. 10(2), 1-27.
Bizzell, P. (1986). “Composing Processes: An Overview.” Chapter 4 (pp. 49-70) in A.
Petrosky and D. Bartholomae, eds., The Teaching of Writing. Eighty-Fifth
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourassa, D., & Treiman, R. (2007). Linguistic factors in spelling development. In Language and literacy encyclopedia. Retrieved Mar 31, 2009, from http://www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa=items.show&topicId=228.
Burt, M., Peyton, J. K., & Van Duzer, C. (2005). How should adult ESL reading
instruction differ from ABE reading instruction? Washington, DC:Center for Applied Linguistics.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 313–321.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of childrenwith dyslexia compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing: An InterdisciplinaryJournal, 18, 27–49.
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, 267-296.
Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. E. (2006). What young children do and do not know about the spelling ofinflections and derivations. Developmental Science, 8, 583–594.
Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M. L.,
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.512-538). New York, NY: Longman.
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement.
In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford:Blackwell.
Dvorak, T. (1986). “Writing in the foreign language.” Pp. 145-67 in B. Wing, ed.,
Listening, Reading, Writing: Analysis and Application. Reports of the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Congerence.
Ferris, D. R. (1995c). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent
self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4 (4), 18– 22.
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, R. (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.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose,
process, & practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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, 161–184.
Foorman, B. R. (2008, February). Prevention and remediation of reading and
learning disabilities: What we know from the research. Paper presented at the Virginia Branch of the International Dyslexia Association, Richmond, VA.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heilnle& Heinle.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent
theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387– 398.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language
Journal, 64, 216– 221.
Hirsch, E. D. (2003, Spring). Reading comprehension requires knowledge--- of words
and the world. American Educator, 10-13, 16-22, 28-29, 48.
Hughes, A (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Joshi, R. M., Trieman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. C. (2008/ 2009b). How words
cast their spell; Spelling is an integral part of learning the language, not a memorization. American Educator, 32(4), 6-8, 10-13, 16, 42.
Joshi, R. M., Leong, C. K., & Kaczmarek, B. (Eds.). (2003). Literacy acquisition: The role of phonology,orthography, and morphology. Amsterdam: IOP Press.
Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. (2009). How words cast their spell: Spellinginstruction focused on language, not memory, improves reading and writing. American Educator,32(4), 6–16, 42–43.
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading
fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310-321.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Kwong, T. E., & Varnhagen, C. K. (2005). Strategy development and learning to spell new words: Generalization of a process. Developmental Psychology, 41, 148–159.
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 college-level teaching. System, 25, 465–477.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences for ESL students for error correction in college level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24, 203-218.
Leong, C. K. (1997). Paradigmatic analysis of Chinese word reading: Research findings and classroom practices. In C. K. Leong & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Cross-language studies of learning to read and spell: Phonological and orthographic processing (pp.378–417). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How language are learned. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert &
E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy. Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179-192). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lyster, R. 2007. Learning and teaching languages through content: a
counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Neomy, S. (2010). Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research.
International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), pp.29-46.
MacWhinney and E. Bates (eds.). The Cross- linguistic Study of Sentence Processing.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moats, L., C. (2005/2006, Winter). How spelling supports reading: And why it is
more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 12-16, 20-22, 42-43.
Moats, L. (2010, April). What does spelling have to do with reading comprehension?
Presented at Idaho RTI Conference, Boise, ID.
Nation, I. M. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 262-305).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Park, E. (2006). Review articles on " The Effectiveness of Teacher's Written Feedback on L2 writing". SNU Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language 5, pp.61-73.
Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 31–44.
Rance-Roney, J. (1995). Transitioning adult ESL learners to academic programs.
Washington, DC; ERIC Resource center. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED385173)
Révész, A. J. (2007). Focus on form in task-based language teaching: Recasts, task
complexity, and L2 learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Rivers, W. M. (1975). A practical guide to the teaching of French. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ritchey, K. D., & Speece, D. L. (2006). From letter names to word reading: The
nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(3), 301-327.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect
on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–91.
Stahl, S. A. (2003, Spring). How words are learned incrementally over multiple
exposures. American Educator, 27(1), 18-19, 44.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic
processing. Reading Research Quarterly, XXIV(4), 403-429.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a foreign
language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting
competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2), 147-163.
Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In A.
M. B. De Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H.
Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200-219). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Sun-Alperin, K., & Wang, M. (2008). Spanish-speaking children’s spelling errors with English vowel sounds that are represented by different graphemes in English and Spanish words. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 932–948.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B.
Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition: Research and the classroom (pp.
91-103). Lexington, MA: Heath.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook
& B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgeson, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between
word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (4), 381-398.
Treiman, R. (1998a). Beginning to spell in English. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading andspelling: Development and disorders (pp. 371–393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Treiman, R. (1998b). Why spelling? The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning readinginstruction. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 289–313).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Walz, J. C. (1982). Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom.
Language in Education, Theory, and Practice, No. 50. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 217704.
Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003a). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325–348.
Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003b). Spelling performance of Chinese ESL children using English as a second language: lexical and visual orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 1–25.
Wang, M., Koad, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87, 129–149.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 1. 王鴻泰,〈青樓:中國文化的後花園〉,《當代》137期,1999.01,頁16-29。
2. 2. 向麗頻,〈《三六九小報》〈花叢小記〉所呈現的臺灣藝旦風情〉,《中國文化月刊》261期,2001.12,頁48-76。
3. 5. 李永熾,〈從「遊廓」到「賣春防止」〉,《當代》122期,1997.10,頁96-105。
4. 6. 李永熾,〈從巫女到遊女—日本文化史的一章〉,《當代》138期,1999.02,頁60-73。
5. 7. 林弘勳,〈日據時期臺灣煙花史話〉,《思與言》33卷3期,1995.09,頁77-128。
6. 9. 林實芳,〈就子賣落煙花界 日治時期台灣色情行業中的婦女人身買賣〉,《女學學誌:婦女與性別研究》23期,2007.06,頁93-141。
7. 10. 姚政志,〈《三六九小報》中的台灣藝妲(1930-1935)〉,《政大史粹》7期,2004.12,頁37-90。
8. 13. 張英進,〈娼妓文化、都市想像與中國電影〉,《當代》137期,1999.01,頁30-43。
9. 14. 張家銘,〈色情現象與生活世界:一個分析類型的提出及其意義〉,《思與言》33卷3期,1995.09,頁1-26。
10. 16. 陳玉箴,〈日本化的西洋味:日治時期臺灣的西洋料理及臺人的消費實踐〉,《臺灣史研究》20卷1期,2013.03,頁79-125。
11. 17. 陳姃湲,〈在殖民地臺灣社會夾縫中的朝鮮人娼妓業〉,《臺灣史研究》17卷3期,2010.09,頁107-149。
12. 18. 陳姃湲,〈洄瀾花娘,後來居上—日治時期花蓮港遊廓的形成與發展〉,《近代中國婦女史研究》21期,2013.06,頁49-119。
13. 19. 陳慧珍,〈日治時期臺灣藝妲之演出及其相關問題探討〉,《民俗曲藝》146期,2004.12,頁219-261。
14. 23. 黃得時,〈臺灣歌謠與家庭生活〉,《臺灣文獻》6卷1期,1995.03,頁31-36。
15. 24. 楊詞萍,〈消遣與消費--《遊戲報》中的花榜與「妓女」報導〉,《有鳳初鳴年刊》5期,2009.10,頁305-322。