臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討後設回饋與場域屬性對台灣高職生在修正稿及新篇作文寫作上使用過去式及與過去事實相反假設語氣正確性的效果。研究對象為中臺灣某高職一年級兩班(86人)應用外語科英文組的學生，其中一班為實驗組(47人)，另一班為對照組(39人)。研究工具有二，一為一般用來評量學習者認知風格的藏圖測驗，二為二篇敘事文寫作。研究對象在20分鐘內完成藏圖測驗。所有的寫作測驗皆要求研究對象在50分鐘內根據四格漫畫寫一篇二百字左右的作文；而修正稿則須在20分鐘內完成。然後研究者在實驗組學生作文相關文法錯誤的地方畫線標號並提供簡單文法說明及例句，至於對照組則僅給予內容方面一般性回饋。第一週對研究對象施以藏圖測驗來測量他們的場域屬性。接下來，第二週完成第一篇寫作當作前測，在第四週學生根據所收到的回饋修改第一篇寫作並完成第二篇寫作當作後測。兩組都只在第一篇寫作接受回饋。研究人員將每位研究對象前測、修正稿、後測中過去式與假設語氣必須(正確或不正確)使用及過度使用的分別轉換成百分比做進一步檢驗分析，以探討各變項間的關係。研究結果顯示後設回饋能提升研究對象在修正稿及新篇作文中使用過去式及與過去事實相反假設語氣的正確性。然而，場域屬性無法預測/影響學生是否有效運用後設回饋修正原文或在之後的及新篇作文寫作更正確使用過去式及與過去事實相反假設語氣。最後，根據本研究的結果與討論，研究者提出在教學上的意涵並提出對未來研究的建議。

This study investigated the effects of metalinguistic feedback (MF) and a possible mediating factor, field (in)dependency (FI/D), in the effectiveness of MF on Taiwanese vocational high school students’ accuracy of past tense and Type III conditionals in revised and new writing. Freshman Applied English majors from two classes (n=86) in a vocational senior high school in central Taiwan were assigned to the experimental group (n=47) and the comparison group (n=39). The instruments included an Embedded Figures Test (EFT), used to measure learners’ cognitive style, and two picture-cued writing tests. The EFT was administered in 20 minutes. The writing tasks required the participants to write a passage with at least 200 words based on a four-picture story strip within 50 minutes. The participants were given 20 minutes to complete the revision task. The experimental group received an indication of an error with a number on it and simple rules and examples on grammatical features, whereas the comparison group received general feedback on the content only. The participants were given the EFT in week one. They 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. Both groups received feedback only on the first writing task. The ratio of the accurate uses of each of the target structures to all obligatory (correct or incorrect) and overuses produced by each participant in each piece of writing was converted into a percentage further statistical analyses of the relationships among the variables. The findings show that MF was effective in enhancing the participants’ accurate uses of past tense and Type III conditionals both in revision and new writing. However, FI/D was not a mediating factor in the effects of MF on students’ accurate uses of past tense and Type III conditionals. At the end of this thesis, pedagogical implications and limitations of this study and suggestions for further research were provided.

Abstract i
摘要 iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 2
Rationale of the Study 7
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 10
Definition of Terms 11

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 16
The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback 17
Different types of written corrective feedback 17
Direct or indirect written corrective feedback 18
The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on Revision and/or New Writings 23
Studies on the effectiveness of WCF in revised drafts 24
Studies on the effectiveness of WCF in new writings / in revision followed by new writings 28
Studies on effects of metalinguistic feedback 34
Studies of written corrective feedback on past tense 40
Studies of written corrective feedback on conditionals 43
Studies of individual differences (IDs) 47
Cognitive Style 51
Studies of field (in)dependency in second language learning 52

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 58
Participants 58
Instruments 59
Treatment 61
Data Collection Procedure 62
Scoring and Data Analyses 62

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70
Results 70
Discussion 80

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 88
Summary of the Findings and Pedagogical Implications 88
Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research 89

REFERENCES 92

Appendix A 106
Appendix B 111
Appendix C 113
Appendix D 115

Abraham, R. G. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 689-707.
Allport, G. G. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
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. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
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. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
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
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. NY: Longman.
Cai, J. (2007). The effects of multiple linguistic factors on the simple past use in English interlanguage. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Carson, J. G., & Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on learning styles and strategies: A diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning, 52, 401-438. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00188
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
Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independency/dependence in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 42, 47-83.
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27-45.
Chen, H.-H. J. (2016). The effects of direct correction and metalinguistic feedback on EFL college students' accuracy of type III conditionals. (Unpublished master's thesis), National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Cohen, A. D. (2003). Strategy training for second language learners. ERIC Digest, EDO-FL-03-02. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/DIGEST.
Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learner errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 4, 161–70.
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? Accessing Writing, 24, 16-34. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42-68.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty C. & Williams, J. (Eds). Focus on Form in classroom second language acquisition. (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Chinese Second Language Acquisition: Cambridge University Press.
Ebadi, M. R., Saad, M. R. M, & Abedalaziz, N. (2014). Explicit Form Focus Instruction- The Effects on Implicit and Explicit. Malaysian Online Journal of Education Science, 2(4), 25-34.
Ehrman M., & Leaver, B. L. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System, 31, 393-415.
Ehrman M., Leaver, B. L, & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313-330.
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
Elliotte, A. R. (1995). Field dependent/independent, hemispheric specialization, and attitude in relation to pronunciation accuracy in Spanish as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 356-371. doi: 10.111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01112.x
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009a). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2010b). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990544
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405-428.
Ellis, R, Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368. doi: 10.10170S0272263106060141
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
Farsi, M., Bagheri, M, S., Sharif, M., & Nematollahi, F. (2014). Relationship between field dependence/independence and language proficiency of female EFL students. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistic World (IJLLALW), 6(3), 208-220.
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), 1-11. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990490
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A, & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
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. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Fine, B. J., & Danforth, A. V. (1975). Field-dependence, extraversion and perception of the vertical: empirical and theoretical perspectives of the rod-and-frame test. Sage Journals, 40(3), 683-693. doi: 10.2466/pms.1975.40.3.683
Fisiak, J. (1985). Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher. Pergamon Institute of English. (pp. 207-208). Pergamon Press.
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. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Hansen, J. & Standfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning, 31(2), 349-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01389.x
Hansen, J. & Standfield, C. (1983). Field dependence-independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 29-38.
Hanulikova, A., Dediu, D., Fang, Z., Basnakova, J., & Huettig, F. (2012). Individual differences in the acquisition of a complex L2 phonology: a training study. Language Learning, 62(2), 79-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00707.x
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Hsu, K.-j. (許凱絨)., & Yeh, C.-y. (葉潔宇). (2011). The effects of corrective feedback on Taiwan high school EFL low-achievers’ paragraph writing: “Direct correction” vs. “Reformulation”. [教師回饋對台灣高中EFL低成就學生段落寫作之效用：「直接訂正法」與「語意重述法」]. Language, Literary Studies and International Studies: An International Journal (8), 53-82.
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 240-253.
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.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44, 137-166.
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.
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Kormos, J. & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 61, 439-472. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press, 45–78.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48-60. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
Langan, J. (2008). College writing skills with reading (7th ed). Singapore: McGraw- Hill Education (Asia).
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634-654. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x
Lin, H.-C. J. (2017). The effects of focused and unfocused feedback on EFL college learners’ accuracy of type III conditionals. (Unpublished master's thesis), National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22, 241-265. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.2.241
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. J. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, Holland: John Bemjamins.
Lyster. R, & Ranta, L. (1997). Written corrective feedback and instructional pedagogies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 252-383.
Oxford, R. L. (2004). Changing the face of EFL instruction through learning styles and strategies. Selected Papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching, 1(1), i-vii.
Rahimi, M. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19-48.
Rassaei, E. (2014). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499-528. doi: 10.1177/1362168814541713
Reid, J. (1995). Learning style in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Rezaee, M. & Farahian, M. (2012). The case study of a field-independence English language learner. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 114-119. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.623
Rezaeian, M. (2001). An investigation into the relationship between field dependence/independence, sex and age towards EFL proficiency in Iranian college students. (Unpublished master's thesis), Shiraz University, Shiraz.
Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M. & Rasekh, A. E. (2015). The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 16, 113-146.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2014). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368-392. doi: 10.1191/026765801681495877
Rummel, S. & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact lao learners’ beliefs have no uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 66-84. doi: 10.1075/aral.38.1.04rum
Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in L2 Japanese. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
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. doi: 10.1017/S0272263107070039
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 sentences Type I, II & III. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2023-2028. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.07
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 255-283. doi: 10.2307/40264353
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990507
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning (pp. 5-7). 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. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
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(3), 286-306. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
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. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006
Shintani, N., Aubrey, S., & Donnellan, M. (2016). The effects of pre-task and post-task metalinguistic explanations on accuracy in second language writing? TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 945-955. doi: 10.1002/tesq.323
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. doi:10.1111/lang.12029
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. New York: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century.
Sridhar, S. N. (1976). Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Interlanguage: Three Phases of One Goal. Indian Linguistics, 37, 258 - 281.
Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282.
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.
Tagarelli, K. M., Ruiz, S., Vega, J. L. M., & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Variability in second language learning: The role of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 293-316. doi: 10.1017/S0272263116000036
Tella, J., Indoshi, F. C., & Othuon, L. A. (2010). Relationship between students’ perspectives on the secondary school English curriculum and their academic achievement in Kenya. Educational Research, 1, 390-395.
Thornbury, S. (2000). How to teach grammar. London: Pearson ESL.
Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field dependence-independence and academic achievement: a re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Tursina, P., & Chuang, M.-T. (2016). Direct and indirect corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing performance. Proceedings of English Education International Conference; Vol 1 No 2 (2016): Proceedings of EEIC.
van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
Witkin, H.A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1-15.
Witkin, H. A. (1978). Cognitive styles in personal and cultural adaptation. The Heinz Werner Lecture Series, vol. 11. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press.
Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Field dependence and field Independence. New York: International Universities.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Group embedded figures test manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Wu, Y. -y. (吳裕益). (1985). A study on individual differences between cognitive ability and cognitive pattern. [認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討]. Journal of Education, (7), 86-90.
Yalcın, S., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty: An EFL classroom-based study. 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(Special Issue 02), 235-263. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990519