畫底線與畫底線加提示性改法對大學生寫作準確度與流暢度之成效比較

論文摘要

本研究旨在比較畫底線與畫底線加提示性改法對大學生寫作準確度與流暢度之成效。 本研究對象為67位來自南臺灣一所大學中級英文程度之新生與二年級生，這些大學生不曾使用過類似此兩種之老師錯誤更正方法，經隨機分配到畫底線組或畫底線加提示性改法組接受錯誤更正。
二組學生各接授每週100分鐘之相同課程，全程共十六週(大約二十六小時)教學內容著重於文法，句型結構及修辭。 學生依規定依序繳交5篇150-200字敘述文之自傳經老師更正後再交回訂正版。

研究結果顯示
一、準確度進步成效: 畫底線加提示提示性改法組之寫作準確度(錯誤率降低)有顯著步，而畫底線組無顯著差異。
二、流暢度進步成效: 二組學生之寫作流暢度 (每分之字數產量)皆無顯著差異。

總結而論，以準確度進步成效而言，畫底線加提示性改法組之所以大幅進步，是因此提示性改法非但提供錯誤類型與提示範例，更正時因有指示方向而降低訂正錯誤之困惑，加上提示中無提供正確寫法，為培養學生獨立思考錯誤及更正; 相對地，在畫底線組顯示，只有畫底線錯誤更正而無指示方向錯誤類型與提示範例，對於中級英文程度之大學生來說，在訂正錯誤時，因無法完理解老師更正之錯誤類型及其涵義而產生挫折，此為導致準確度無顯著進步之主因之一。

A Comparison of the Effects of Underlining with Coding System and Underlining Teachers’ Feedback on Accuracy and Fluency

Abstract

This study compared EFL undergraduates’ writing accuracy and fluency as a result of receiving underlining and underlining with coding system teachers’ feedback. Sixty-seven freshmen and sophomores of intermediate English level without similar teachers’ feedback experience in a southern Taiwan university were selected and then randomly assigned to participate in two treatments: underlining and underlining with coding system teachers’ feedback. The experiments of the respective treatments lasted sixteen weeks (about 26 hours) and consisted of two weekly 100-minutes instructions on grammar, sentence structures and rhetoric skills. Students were required to write five narrative essays of autobiography with each between 150 – 200 words, and then submitted revision after receiving respective treatment. There were two major findings in terms of accuracy and fluency:
1. Accuracy: underlining with coding system group made highly significant improvement on error rate (reduction of error) whereas underling group did not.
2. Fluency: underlining with coding and underlining group did not make significant improvements of fluency rate (word production per minute).
The researcher concluded that the coding system assisted intermediate EFL undergraduates with coded error types and explicit examples, and yet without giving direct correction, it invited involvement for revision which improved writing accuracy; underlining feedback was insufficient in providing directions and indications of error for correction given its ambiguity.

References

Anglada, L. (1995). On-line writing center responses and advanced ESL students’ writing: An analysis of comments, students’ attitudes and textural revisions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University.

Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics & pedagogy (pp. 90-116). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

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, 227-258.

Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositons. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Brice, C. (1995, March). ESL writers’ reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. Paper presented at the 30th Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 312)

Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188.

Chandler, J. (2000, March). The efficacy of error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L2 student writing. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC.

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.

Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on written 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.

Cohen, A. D. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 133-159.

Conrad, S.M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-180.

Crawford, J. (1992). Student response to feedback strategies in an English for academic purposes program. ARAL, 15, 45-62.

Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabuses for secondary schools: English language secondary 1-5. Hong Kong: Education Department.

Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193-204.

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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8 (1), 41-62.

Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.

Ferris, D. R. (1995c). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4 (4), 18-22.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.

Ferris, D. R. (2001a). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, & practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000, March). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC.

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. 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.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbot: the University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344.

Frantzen, D., & Rissell, D. (1987). Learner self-correction of written compositions: What does it show us? In B. Van Pattern, T.R. Dvorak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 92-107). Cambridge: Newbury House.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing. 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 on L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387- 398.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher-written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10, 185-212.

Hyland, (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217- 230.

James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman.

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, 75, 305-313.

Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

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.

Lam, C. Y. P. (1991). Revision processes of college ESL students: How teacher comments, discourse types, and writing tools shape revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (12), 4248A.

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.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Polio, C., Fleck, Co, & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.

Radecki, P., Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.

Reid, J. (1998). Responding to ESL student language problems: Error analysis and revision plans. In P. Byrd & J. M. Reid (Eds.), Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college-bound students (pp. 118- 137),. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Rennie, C. (2000). Error feedback in ESL writing classes: What do students really want? Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.

Russikoff, K., & Kogan, S. (1996, March). Feedback on ESL writing. Paper presented at the 31st Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL.

Saito, H. (1994). Teacher’s practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.

Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.

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, 111-222.

Tsai, H. M. (2004) Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R. O. C. (pp.739-754.)
You, U. & Joe, S. (2004). The impacts of self-regulation upon EFL writers’ performance. Paper presented at The 21st International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R. O. C. (pp. 787-798.)

Yu, Y. T. & Yeh, Y. L. (2004). Computerized feedback and bilingual concordancer for EFL college students writing. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R. O. C. (pp.35-48.)

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102.

Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21,
697-715.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.