臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究探討直接訂正與後設回饋之訂正性回饋對台灣大學生在修正稿及新篇作文寫作上使用與過去事實相反的假設語氣法正確性的效果。本研究對象為中台灣某大學的53個學生分配於直接訂正組（18人）、後設回饋組（17人）及控制組（18人）。研究對象完成第一篇寫作當作前測，兩周後修改第一篇寫作並完成第二篇寫作當作立即後測，最後於六周後完成第三篇寫作作為延遲後測。所有的測驗中研究對象皆須根據四格漫畫及所提供的訊息寫一篇三段式三百字左右的作文。所有組別只在第一篇寫作接受回饋。每位研究對象各次測驗的分數是將與過去事實相反的假設語氣法之使用正確性化為百分比並將其結果用ｔ檢定及單因子變異數分析統計。結果顯示就短期而言直接訂正與後設回饋均能提高研究對象在修正稿及新篇作文中使用與過去事實相反的假設語氣法的正確度。除此之外，兩種訂正性回饋的效果均能長時間維持但後設回饋比直接訂正的效果更為顯著。文末最後討論此研究在教學上的意涵與提出對未來研究的建議。

This study investigated the effects of two specific types of written corrective feedback (WCF), direct correction (DC) and metalinguistic feedback (MF), on Taiwanese EFL college students’ accurate use of Type III conditionals in a revised draft and new writings. Fifty-three freshmen from a university in central Taiwan participated in this study and were assigned to a DC group (n = 18), an MF group (n = 17), and a control group (n = 18). They were given a first writing task as a pretest, and a revision of the first writing and a second writing task two weeks later as an immediate posttest, and finally a third writing task six weeks later as a delayed posttest. The writing tasks all followed the same format, requiring the participants to write a three-paragraph passage with at least 300 words based on a four-picture story strip and some information provided. The groups all received feedback in the first writing only. The ratio of the accurate uses of the target structure to all those uses produced by each participant in each piece of writing was converted into a percentage for further t-test and ANOVA analyses. The results showed that both DC and MF were effective, and equally effective, in enhancing the participants’ accuracy of using Type III conditionals in revision and new writing in the immediate posttest. Furthermore, both types of WCF had long-term effects with MF demonstrating superiority over DC in the delayed posttest. Pedagogical implications and limitations and suggestions for further studies are also provided.

ABSTRACT (English) i
ABSTRACT (Chinese) ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Rationale of the Study 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Definitions of Terms 13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Types of Written Corrective Feedback 16
Focused or unfocused written corrective feedback 17
Direct or indirect written corrective feedback 21
The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on Revision and/or New Writings 24
The effects of WCF on revised drafts 25
The effects of WCF on new writings 27
The effects of WCF on revision followed by new writings. 30
Direct Correction and Metalinguistic Feedback 34
Studies on effects of direct correction 34
Studies on effects of metalinguistic feedback 41
Different effects between direct correction and metalinguistic feedback 44
Studies of Written Corrective Feedback in Taiwan 48
Studies of Written Corrective Feedback on Conditionals 53
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY 60
Participants 60
Instruments 61
Treatment 62
Scoring and Data Analysis 63
Data Collection Procedures 68
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70
Results 70
Discussion 76
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION 85
Summary of the Findings 85
Pedagogical Implications 85
Limitations of the Study 87
Suggestions for Further Research 90
REFERENCES 92
APPENDIX A　 A Sample of the Writing Task (English Version) 107
APPENDIX B　 A Sample of the Writing Task (Chinese Version) 109
APPENDIX C　 Samples of Direct Correction-1-1 111
APPENDIX D　 Samples of Direct Correction-1-2 112
APPENDIX E　 Samples of Direct Correction-2-1 113
APPENDIX F　 Samples of Direct Correction-2-2 114
APPENDIX G　 Samples of Metalinguistic Feedback-1-1 115
APPENDIX H　 Samples of Metalinguistic Feedback-1-2 116
APPENDIX I　 Samples of Metalinguistic Feedback-2-1 117
APPENDIX J　 Samples of Metalinguistic Feedback-2-2 118
APPENDIX K　 Samples of Content Feedback-1-1 119
APPENDIX L　 Samples of Content Feedback-1-2 120
APPENDIX M　 Samples of Content Feedback-2-1. 121
APPENDIX N　 Samples of Content Feedback-2-2. 122

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved January 4th, 2016 from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
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.
Azar, B. S. (1999). Understanding & using English grammar (3rd ed). New York: Pearson.
Azar, B. S., & Matthies, B. F. (2001). Understanding & using English grammar: Teacher’s guide. New York: Pearson.
Barrett, N. E. (2010). A corpus based analysis of English articles in Taiwanese students’ EFL writing (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Cheng Kung University, Tainan.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis. R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 25(2), 243-72.
Berent, G. P. (1985). Markedness considerations in the acquisition of conditional sentences. Language Learning, 35(3), 337-372.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
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.
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), 227-258.
Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen J. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. F. Fanselow & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), TESOL 76 (pp. 41-45). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
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.
Chang, C.–Y. (2014). An investigation on university English major students’ perception and responses to teacher error correction and feedback (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taipei.
Chang, W.–T. (2009). A Qualitative study of student response to teacher written feedback during the revision process (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taipei.
Chen, K. Y, Huang, T. S., Lin, S. O., Lin, C. I., Su, S. F., & Kang, S. O. (陳坤田、黃燦遂、林素娥、林啟一、蘇順發、康淑娥) (1992). A Research report of construction and grading of English composition tests in the JCEE (大學入學考試英文科寫作能力命題及評分之探討研究報告). Taipei: College Entrance Examination Center.
Cheng, H.–W. (2012). Utilizing automated writing evaluation software in correcting high school students’ compositions (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 79-87.
Chiu, L.–E. (2013). EFL English-major freshmen’s expectations of writing conferences (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tunghai University, Taichung.
Chou, Y.-F. (2014). Taiwanese senior high school English teachers’ perspectives on written error feedback and feedback practices (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.
College Entrance Examination Center (2015a).Cumulative percentage of the number of testees in the Advanced Subjects Test (指定科目考試各科級分人數百分比累計表). Retrieved from January 4th, 2016 from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AppointExam/
DrseStat/104DrseStat/104DrseStatIndex.htm
College Entrance Examination Center (2015b). Cumulative percentage of the number of testees in the General Scholastic Ability Test (學科能力測驗各科級分人數百分比累計表) Retrieved from January 4th, 2016 from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/
SatStat/104SATSat/104SATStatIndex.htm
Cullen, R. (2008). Teaching grammar as a liberating force. ELT Journal, 62(3), 221-230.
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Accessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
De Bot, K. (1996). Review article: The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(3), 1-46.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
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
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-32.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.
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, 353-371.
Farrokhi, F., Rahimpour, M., Papi, Z. (2011). Incidental focus on form techniques in Iranian EFL classrooms: A comparison between expert and novice teachers. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 15-20-157.
Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49-57.
Fathman, A., & 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4, 18-22.
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. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. 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. (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 (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). New York: 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. R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, March 11-14, 2000, 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(3), 161-184.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323–351.
Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52, 301-307.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605–628.
Frear, D. (2010). The effect of focused and unfocused direct written corrective feedback on a new piece of writing. College English: Issues and Trends, 3, 59-71.
Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Frear, D. J., & Chiu, Y,-H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34.
Gillon, C. (2013). The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh.
United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implication for L2 teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Hartshorn, 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(1), 84-109.
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 75-79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook.
Hsieh, H.-C. (2015). The effects of English written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy: An investigation of past tense (Unpublished master's thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.
Hsu, H., -F. (2011). Integrating Google sites into English writing corrective feedback activities for fifth grade students: An action research approach (Unpublished master's thesis). National Chiayi University, Chiayi.
Hsu, K. (2010). The effects of corrective feedback on Taiwan high school EFL low-achievers' paragraph writing: “direct correction” vs. “reformulation” (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Hsu, S. F. (2012). An investigation into the effects of teacher feedback on English sentence writing of grade six elementary school students in Hsin Chu County (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Hsu, Y.–C. (2013). Teacher written feedback, peer feedback, and teacher-student conferencing: Taiwanese EFL students’ attitudes and perspectives (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.
Huang, Y.–P. (2006). The effects of error correction on the English writing of senior high school students in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Jiang, L., & Xiao, H. (2014). The efficacy of written corrective feedback and language analytic ability on Chinese learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. English Language Teaching, 7(10), 22-34.
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.
Kao, C. W. (2014). Rethinking focus: An investigation into the determinants of focused feedback effectiveness in EFL writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Central University, Taoyuan.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern language Journal, 5, 305-313.
Khoshima, H., & Farid, M. J. (2012). The long-term effect of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on accuracy of EFL learners’ descriptive writing skill. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 4(2), 119-134.
Kim, B. (2009). Proficiency level and the relative effects of different corrective feedback options on EFL student writing. English Teaching, 64(4), 203-222.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1994). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lalande, J. F., II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Lee, S. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118.
Li, C. –Y. (2008). The influence of teacher response on students’ revision in an EFL setting (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
Lin, C. (2012). Investigating the effects of error correction and EFL Students’ attitudes toward error correction in writing (Unpublished master’s thesis). I-Shou University, Kaohsiung.
Lin, Y.–Y. (2007). A case study of a teacher’s beliefs and behaviors of error correction toward two EFL classes (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.
Liu, Y.–L. (2010). The impact of feedback on EFL college students’ revising process (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taipei.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
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.
Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Written corrective feedback and instructional pedagogies, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 252-283.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-30.
Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus on form techniques. Language Teaching Research 8(3), 01-27.
Mennim, P. (2007). Long-term effects of noticing on oral output. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 265-80.
Molano, A. F. V., & Paez, F. M. M. (2014). Effects of implicit and explicit written corrective feedback on learner’s written grammatical accuracy. Folios De Humanidades y Pedagogia, 2, 57-66.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL Classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. NY: Routledge.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. T., & Platt, H. K. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Essex, England: Longman.
Rinehart, D. (2012). Using corrective feedback to improve Taiwanese university students English writing proficiency (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-93.
Rouhi, A. & Samiei, M. (2010). The effects of focused and unfocused indirect feedback on accuracy in EFL writing. The Social Sciences, 5, 481-485.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.
Sadat, T., Zarifi, A., Sadat, A., & Malekzadeh, J. (2015). Effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy and retention of conditional sentence types I, II, & III. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2023-2028.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Seedhouse, P. (1997). Combining meaning and form. English Language Teaching Journal 51(4), 336-44.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 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. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the
ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 201–234.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
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, 556-569.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC journal, 23, 103-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
Shih, W.–R. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of error correction in EFL writing classes for continuing education university English majors in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286-306.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in a second language writing? System, 49, 110-119.
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131.
Suh, B. R. (2010). Written feedback in second language acquisition: Exploring the roles of type of feedback, linguistic targets, awareness, and concurrent verbalization. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, USA, Washington, DC.
Suh, B. R. (2014). The effectiveness of direct and indirect coded written feedback in English as a foreign language. Language Research, 50(3), 795-814.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1986). Immersion French in secondary schools: “The goods” and “the bads.” Contact, 5(3), 2-9.
Takimoto, J. (2009). Exploring the effects of input-based treatment and test on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1029-1046.
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 against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
Tseng, H.–H. (2014). The effect of error feedback on spelling and sentence writing for upper level graders in elementary school (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taipei.
Tseng, H.–Y (2011). Feedback practices and students’ reaction: a case study in an EFL composition class in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.
Tseng, Y. T. (2012). The effect of prompts through Focus-on-form practice on Taiwanese junior high school students’ acquisition of simple past tense (Unpublished master's thesis). National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.
Tursina, P. (2015). Direct and indirect corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing performance (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chiayi University, Chiayi.
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. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies on written corrective feedback: Theoretical perspective, empirical evidence and future directions. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 110-120.
Wang, W. -J. S. (2005). The Effects of degrees of explicitness of automated feedback on English learners' acquisition of collocations (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tamkang University, Taipei.
Wen, C. M. –F. (2015). The more you give, the more you get: A study of the effects of teacher counter-feedback on students’ peer feedback and students’ EFL writings (Unpublished master’s thesis). Providence University, Taichung.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-161.
Wu, S. 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, Kaohsiung.
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(Special Issue 02), 235-263.
Yu, C.–L. (2013). The effect of focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of articles (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.