淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1302200915391100
中文論文名稱 學生在修改作文過程中對老師文字回饋信息的反應之質性研究
英文論文名稱 A Qualitative Study of Student Response to Teacher Written Feedback during the Revision Process
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 97
學期 1
出版年 98
研究生中文姓名 張汶婷
研究生英文姓名 Wen-Ting Chang
學號 693010588
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2009-01-12
論文頁數 82頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃月貴
委員-馮和平
委員-張雅慧
中文關鍵字 質性研究  學生反應  老師文字回饋信息  修改過程 
英文關鍵字 Qualitative Study  Student response  Teacher Written feedback  Revision process 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 這個研究主要在調查學生在修改作文的過程中,對老師所提供的不同類型的文字回饋信息的反應。本研究採用質性研究方法,其資料來源包括問卷調查、學生訪談、作文草稿,以及老師文字回饋信息。本研究分析三位作文講師在兩份完整的作文作業週期中所提供的所有文字回饋信息,並檢視以英語為第二外語的九位大學生在修改作文過程中,對老師所提供回饋信息的反應和意見。依據著重焦點的這類型回饋信息,研究結果顯示學生針對幾乎所有老師所強調的內容和形式焦點的回饋信息作出反應。唯有在他們發現某些回饋信息太含糊、潦草或複雜時,他們才會留下一些這樣的回饋信息而不作出回應。此外,當大多數的學生都只針對他們老師所給的回饋信息去修改文章時,有兩位學生積極地尋求其他更有建設性、更適合她們的信息來源,以修改出更好的作文。依據著重直接度的這類型回饋信息,研究報告結果顯示出,在老師所給的直接和間接回饋信息的幫助下,學生成功地修正大多數的作文問題。然而,在許多老師因素(例如偏好使用某類型的回饋信息、喜愛使用特定修正符號或名稱 )和學生因素 (例如語言能力、文法知識、學習動機) 的影響下,學生似乎無法徹底地了解、正確地詮釋出老師藉由文字回饋信息所指示出的某些作文問題 (例如句子結構、搭配字、文字慣用法)。藉由學生訪談的資料,許多經常被說出的理由,就是關於學生針對不同文字類型的回饋信息所作出的不同反應的理由,也會在此研究中討論。本研究建議,老師可以讓學生更去重視內容相關的回饋信息、鼓勵學生採用其他信息來源所提供的建議,並在學生作文草稿上提供學生更明確的文字回饋信息。
英文摘要 This study aims to investigate students’ responses to different types of teacher written feedback during the revision process. Using a qualitative-based approach and data from questionnaire, student interviews, writing drafts, and teacher feedback, the study analyzes all the written feedback given by three composition instructors over two writing cycles and examines nine college-level EFL students’ reactions to and opinions about their teacher’s feedback for revision. The results show that, in terms of focus, students responded to almost all of the form- and content-focused feedback addressed by their teacher. They only left a small number of feedback points unattended when they found these feedback points too implicit, illegible, or complex to understand. Additionally, while the majority of the students made revisions based solely on their teacher’s feedback, two out of the nine students sought actively for more constructive and suitable feedback on content from other sources so as to produce better revisions. In terms of directness, the results show that students made numerous successful revisions with the help of their teacher’s indirect and direct feedback. However, owing to various teacher factors (i.e., preference for certain feedback types and favored use of certain symbols or terms) and student factors (i.e., linguistic competence, grammatical knowledge, and learning motivation), students did not seem to fully understand and correctly interpret all of their writing problems (i.e., sentence structure, collocation, and word usages) as indicated by these given feedback types. Gathered from student interview sessions, several commonly cited reasons for students’ range of responses to different feedback types are discussed in this study as well. The findings suggest that teacher can draw more of their students’ attention to content-related feedback, encourage their students to adopt suggestions from other feedback sources, and provide them with more explicit feedback information.

論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………i
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………iv
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………vi
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………vii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………1
1.2 Statement of the Problem………………………………………2
1.3 Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………3
1.4 Research Questions………………………………………………3

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Background…………………………………………5
2.1.1 Relationship between Teacher Feedback and Student Revision…………………………………………………………………5
2.1.2 Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback Types……………7
2.1.3 Effects of Teacher Feedback on Student Revision………9
2.1.4 Effects of Teacher versus Peer Feedback on Student Revision…………………………………………………………………10
2.2 Error Feedback Types and their Effectiveness……………13
2.2.1 Effects of Explicit versus Implicit Feedback on Student Revision………………………………………………………13
2.2.2 Effects of Direct versus Indirect Feedback on Student Revision…………………………………………………………………14
2.2.3 Student Preferences for Error Feedback Types…………15

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Context of the Study……………………………………………18
3.2 Selection of Teacher Participants…………………………19
3.3 Selection of Student Participants…………………………19
3.4 Data Collection…………………………………………………21
3.5 Data Analysis……………………………………………………21

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Teachers’ uses of Different Types of Feedback in Students’ Drafts……………………………………………………24
4.1.1 Feedback Types: Focus and Directness……………………24
4.1.1.1 Subtypes of Form-focused Feedback……………………26
4.1.1.2 Subtypes of Content-focused Feedback…………………27
4.1.1.3 Subtypes of Indirect Feedback…………………………28
4.1.1.4 Subtypes of Direct Feedback……………………………29
4.2 Students’ Responses to Various Types of Feedback in the Revision Process………………………………………………30
4.2.1 Students’ Similar Response to Form- and Content-focused Feedback………………………………………………………30
4.2.2 Range of Student Responses to Form- and Content-focused Feedback………………………………………………………34
4.2.3 Students’ Response to Indirect and Direct Fee1dback………………………………………………………………38
4.3Discussion…………………………………………………………45
4.3.1 Reasons for Range of Student Responses to their Teacher’s Feedback…………………………………………………46
4.3.1.1 Reasons for Numerous Teacher-initiated Revisions…46
4.3.1.2 Reasons for Fewer Self-initiated Revisions…………48
4.3.1.3 Reasons for Very Few Other-initiated Revisions………………………………………………………………50

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Overview……………………………………………………………52
5.2 Limitations of the Study………………………………………54
5.3 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………54
5.4 Suggestions for Future Studies………………………………56

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………58

APPENDICES
Appendix A Questionnaire……………………………………………63
Appendix B 問卷調查表………………………………………………68
Appendix C Retrospective Interview Questions…………………73
Appendix D Samples of Teacher Written Feedback………………74
Appendix E Coding Scheme 1: Focus………………………………79
Appendix F Coding Scheme 2: Directness…………………………81

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 page In-text Negative or Neutral Teacher Written Feedback Points, Teacher-initiated
Change, and Successful Revision……………..……………………………………..32
Table 2 Teacher-, Self-, and Other-initiated Change and Student Revision Points…………..33

Figure 1 LIST OF FIGURES Page Three Teacher Participants and Nine Student Participants…………………………..20
Figure 2 Four Types of Feedback Made by Teachers…………………………………………25
Figure 3 Aspects of Form-focused Feedback addressed by Teachers…………………………26
Figure 4 Aspects of Content-focused Feedback addressed by Teachers………………………27
Figure 5 Aspects of Indirect Feedback given by Teachers……………………………………28
Figure 6 Aspects of Direct Feedback given by Teachers……………………………………...29
Figure 7 Procedure for Responding to In-text Negative or Neutral Indirect Feedback……….40
Figure 8 Procedure for Responding to Direct Feedback………………………………………41

參考文獻 REFERENCES
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.
Anderson, K., Benson, C., & Lynch, T. (2004). Feedback on writing: Attitudes and uptake. In L. Sheldon (Ed.), Directions for the Future: Issues in English for Academic Purposes (Proceedings of BALEAP 2001 Conference, pp. 139-150). Oxford, England: Peter Lang.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993) Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15, 357-86.
El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2000). Effects of overall, selective, and no error correction on the quality and quantity of EFL students’ writing. Egypt. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449664)
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32, 39-60
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21 (2), 193-204.
Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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 AAALC Conference,Vancouver, B.C.
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.
Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing. (pp. 73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.
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.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217-230.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill. Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.
Kenpner, 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.
Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1999). Writing clearly: An editing guide (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17, 165-182.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. (2008). Constructing trust between teacher and students through feedback and revision cycles in an EFL writing classroom. Written Communication, 25, 506-537.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17, 144-164.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Lightbown, P. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Proud, R. (1999). An investigation into selected factors influencing the feedback preferences of university-level ESL students on compositions. Master’s thesis, Concordia University.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2),
46-70.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004) Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54
(1), 35-78.
Semke, H. D. (1984). 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.
Sipple, S. (2007). Ideas in practice: Developmental writers’ attitudes toward audio and written feedback. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 22-31.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Tsui, A. B.M., & NG, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit form peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Wang, W. J. (2005). The effects of degrees of explicitness of automated feedback on English learners’ acquisition of collocations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tamkang
University.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. Regional
Language Center Journal, 38(1), 38-52.

論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2009-02-17公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-02-17起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信