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 U0002-1602201415344300
中文論文名稱 英作文教師之批改及回饋:探究大學英文系學生之理解與反應
英文論文名稱 An Investigation on University English Major Students’ Perception and Responses to Teacher Error Correction and Feedback
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 102
學期 1
出版年 103
研究生中文姓名 張瀞云
研究生英文姓名 Ching-Yun Chang
學號 698110094
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2014-01-16
論文頁數 149頁
口試委員 指導教授-蔡瑞敏
委員-薛玉政
委員-莫艾倫
中文關鍵字 錯誤校正  批改代碼  學生理解與反應 
英文關鍵字 Error correction  Correction code  Student perception  Student responses 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 本研究主要在調查學生在修改作文的過程中,如何理解及處理教師的批改及回饋,並檢視會影響學生理解及回應老師批改及回饋的因素。本研究採用質性及量化研究方法。質性資料來源包括學生訪談、出聲思考紀綠 (think-aloud protocol)、學生作文與教師批改及回饋。參與研究的訪談受試者,為十一位以英語為主修的大二學生,透過與研究者進行深入訪談及質性資料分析,學生如何處理教師的批改及回饋、影響學生理解及回應老師批改及回饋的因素得到初步結論。根據質性研究結果,發展第二階段之問卷調查。其問卷調查由123位大二英文系學生完成填答。研究結果顯示,學生會透過多種方法理解及處理教師的批改及回饋。然而,結果顯示部份學生依然誤解、無法理解或採用教師的批改及回饋,其因素為教師提供不足或不適當的批改及回饋,學生語言能力不足、不正確的舊有知識,以及學生的態度與對寫作內容的想法。本研究發現,相較於提供批改代碼(correction codes),學生偏好教師直接提供回饋(給與正確答案)或描述性的文字回饋。此外,在研究中也發現學生信任教師之批改及回饋。本研究建議,英作文教師在批改錯誤及提供回饋給學生時,需謹慎地處理,並提機會與學生會談或討論。
英文摘要 The purpose of the present study was to investigate how students perceive their teachers’ feedback, to explore how students process teacher feedback when revising their writing, and the factors that influence students’ perceptions and responses. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative research, interviews were conducted with students which included think-aloud protocols, and data was collected data from questionnaires, interview transcripts, writing with teacher feedback, and related revisions. For qualitative data collection, eleven college English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students were interviewed, and their perceptions and behavior while processing teacher feedback were analyzed. In order to know whether the results of qualitative research were applicable to a larger population, the questionnaire in which the questions emerged from the interviews was completed by 123 sophomores.

The results of the qualitative and quantitative research showed that the students had various ways of perceiving and processing teacher corrections and feedback. The factors which caused their failure to understand or incorporate teacher corrections and feedback were related to their teachers’ insufficient and improper corrections and feedback, the students’ insufficient language abilities and existing knowledge, as well as their attitudes and opinions. In addition, it was also found that students misunderstood or had difficulties incorporating and understanding teacher corrections and feedback, and they preferred direct corrections (teachers providing the correct forms), descriptive feedback, and correction marks, such as underlines or circles rather than correction codes (e.g., “wf” or “sp”). Nonetheless, the findings showed that there was a trusting relationship between students and their teachers. The findings suggest that teachers need to handle correction codes carefully as well as other types of correction and feedback, and must communicate with their students.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENT v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study 6
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Study 7
1.6 Definition of Terms 7
1.6.1 Think-aloud Protocols 7
1.6.2 Correction Code 8

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Teacher Feedback 9
2.1.1 The Impact of Teacher Feedback on Writing 9
2.1.2 The Effects of Various Types of Feedback 14
2.1.3 Teacher Practice and Perceptions of Feedback 18
2.2 Student Response to Feedback 21
2.2.1 Student Preferences of and Reactions to Teacher Feedback 21
2.2.2 Student Perceptions and Processing of Teacher Feedback 27
2.2.3 Student Difficulties in Understanding Teacher Feedback 29
2.3 Conclusion 31

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 33
3.1 Context of the Study 33
3.2 Recruitment of Research Participants 34
3.3 Data Collection Procedure 37
3.3.1 Semi-structured Interview and Think-aloud Protocols 37
3.3.2 Research Documents: Essays and Revisions 40
3.3.3 Questionnaire 40
3.4 Explanation of Data Analysis 41
3.4.1 Semi-structured Interview and Think-aloud Protocols 42
3.4.2 Writing Drafts and Revisions 42
3.4.3 Questionnaire 43

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 44
4.1 Student Perceptions of Teacher Feedback 45
4.1.1 Assumptions of Teacher Expectations 46
4.1.2 Relating Error Correction to Classroom Lectures 48
4.1.3 Utilizing Teaching Materials 52
4.1.4 Students’ Existing Knowledge and Language Ability 55
4.1.5 Referring to Habitual Mistakes 59
4.1.6 Finding Meaning Through Context 61
4.2 The Factors Influence Students’ Perceptions of Teacher’s feedback 65
4.2.1 Students’ Insufficient Existing Knowledge and Language Abilities 65
4.2.2 Insufficient Information in Corrections and Feedback. 69
4.3 Students’ Processing of Teacher Feedback When Revising Drafts 71
4.3.1 Following Teacher Corrections 71
4.3.2 Do Nothing 74
4.3.3 Make a Change by Rewriting a Sentence, a Paragraph, or an Entire Essay 77
4.3.4 Deletion or Adding Content 79
4.3.5 Adding Additional Revision 81
4.4 The Factors Influence Student Processing of Teacher feedback 83
4.4.1 Improper Teacher Feedback 83
4.4.2 Students’ Opinions 85
4.4.3 Students’ Language Ability 87
4.4.4 Students’ Learning Attitudes 88
4.5 Quantitative Research Results 90
4.5.1 Student Perceptions of Teacher Corrections and Feedback 91
4.5.2 Student Responses to Teacher Corrections and Feedback 94
4.5.3 Student Difficulties Understanding and Responding to Teacher Corrections and Feedback 98
4.5.4 Student Understanding of Teacher Corrections and Feedback 100

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 105
5.1 Summary of the Study 105
5.2 Discussion of the Results 108
5.2.1 The Use of Correction Codes 108
5.2.2 Student Difficulties of Perceiving and Processing Teacher Corrections and Feedback 111
5.2.3 The Role Played by Writing Teachers 114
5.3 Pedagogical Implications 116
5.3.1 Giving Classroom Lecture Before and After Providing Correction Codes 116
5.3.2 Establishing Communication Between Teacher and Students 117
5.3.3 Teacher Competence in Error Correction and Feedback 118
5.4 Limitations of This Study 119
5.5 Suggestions for Future Research 119

REFERENCE 121

APPENDIX A 130
APPENDIX B 132
APPENDIX C 134
APPENDIX D 136
APPENDIX E 138


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Participant Information 36
Table 2 Student Perceptions of Teacher Corrections and Feedback 92
Table 3 Student Reponses to Teacher Correction and feedback 96
Table 4 Student Difficulties Understanding and Responding to Teacher Corrections and Feedback 99
Table 5 Student Understanding of Teacher Corrections and Feedback 101
Table 6 Student Understanding of Teacher Corrections and Feedback 102
Table 7 Student Understanding of Teacher Corrections and Feedback 103
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Procedure of Two Interviews for Each Essay 38
Figure 4.1 Len’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and His Perception 47
Figure 4.2 Joan’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 47
Figure 4.3 Joan’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 48
Figure 4.4 Ben’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and His Perception 49
Figure 4.5 Len’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and His Perception 49
Figure 4.6 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 50
Figure 4.7 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 51
Figure 4.8 Tracy’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 53
Figure 4.9 Joan’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 54
Figure 4.10 Jean’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 55
Figure 4.11 Tracy’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 57
Figure 4.12 Ben’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and His Perception 57
Figure 4.13 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 58
Figure 4.14 Betty’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 59
Figure 4.15 Stacy’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 60
Figure 4.16 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 60
Figure 4.17 Betty’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 61
Figure 4.18 Tracy’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 62
Figure 4.19 Joan’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 63
Figure 4.20 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 63
Figure 4.21 Iris’ Sentence with Corrections, and Her Response to Feedback 66
Figure 4.22 Len’s Sentences with Corrections, and His Response to Feedback 66
Figure 4.23 Stacy’ Sentence with Corrections, and Her Response to Feedback 67
Figure 4.24 Joan’s Sentence with Corrections, and Her Perception to Feedback 68
Figure 4.25 Betty’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and Her Perception 68
Figure 4.26 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 69
Figure 4.27 Len’s Sentence with Corrections and Feedback, and His Perception 70
Figure 4.28 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 72
Figure 4.29 Len’s Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by His Revision and Response 73
Figure 4.30 Stacy’s Sentence with Corrections, and Her Response to Feedback 73
Figure 4.31 Nora’s Sentence with Corrections, and Her Response to Feedback 74
Figure 4.32 Other Participants’ Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 75
Figure 4.33 Joan’s and Betty’s Responses to Their Teachers’ Corrections and Feedback 76
Figure 4.34 Len’s Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by His Revision and Response 77
Figure 4.35 Karl’s Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by His Revision and Response 78
Figure 4.36 Jean’s Sentence with Corrections, and Her Response to Feedback 79
Figure 4.37 Iris’ Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by Her Revision and Response 79
Figure 4.38 Karl’s Sentence with Corrections, and His Response to Feedback 80
Figure 4.39 Nora’s Sentence with Corrections, and Her Response to Feedback 80
Figure 4.40 Len’s and Betty’s Responses 81
Figure 4.41 Len’s and Tracy’s Responses 81
Figure 4.42 Karl’s Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by His Revision and Response 82
Figure 4.43 Karl’s Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by His Revision and Response 82
Figure 4.44 Gill’s Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by Her Revision and Response 84
Figure 4.45 Students’ Responses to Their Processing Teacher Corrections and Feedback 85
Figure 4.46 Iris’ Sentences with Corrections and Feedback, Followed by Her Revision and Response 87
Figure 4.47 Students’ Responses to Their Processing Teacher Corrections and Feedback 88
Figure 4.48 Students’ Responses to Their Processing Teacher Corrections and Feedback 89
Figure 4.49 Jean’s Sentences with Correction and Feedback, Followed by Her Revision and Response 89
Figure 4.50 Students’ Responses to Their Processing Teacher Corrections and Feedback 90

參考文獻 Alamis, M. M. P. (2010). Evaluating students' reactions and responses to teachers' written feedbacks. Philippine ESL Journal, 5, 40-53.
Allingham, P. V., & Belanger, J. Technical report: Using "think-aloud methods" to investigate the processes secondary. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://faculty.educ.ubc.ca/belanger/thinkaloud.htm#N_1_
Anan, E., & Hyland, K. (2006). Teachers' perceptions of error: The effects of first language and experience. System, 34(4), 509-519.
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.
Baker, W., & Montgomery, J. L. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.) Person Education.
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, W. T. (2009). A qualitative study of student response to teacher written feedback during the revision process. (Unpublished Maters of Arts). Tamkang University,
Chiang, K. M. (2004). An investigation into students' preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Hong Kong Teachers' Centre Journal, 3, 98-114.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147-179.
Corpuz, V. A. F. S. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: Teachers' beliefs, practices, and students' preferences. (Unpublished Master of Education). Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Education,
Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students' preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27-51.
Ellis, R., Murakami, M., Sheen, Y., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
Fang, Y. C. (2006). Student response to teacher-written comments in an EFL college writing classroom. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 283-295.
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. (1995). Students reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
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.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 119-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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(1), 49-62.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgocock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Senna, M., & Sinha, A. (2012). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 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(3), 161-184.
Fitzgerald, J. (1984). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481-506.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39(4), 449-461.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing,
Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 43-60.
Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers' preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 128-141.
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(3), 287-308.
Hsu, Y. P., & Truscott, J. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.
Humes, A. (1983). Research on the composing process. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 201-216.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 182-212.
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(3), 305-313.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching in an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 219-232). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Lai, A. (2007). A case study of a teacher's feedback and students' responses. (Unpublished Master of Arts). National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (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(3), 165-182.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners' performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216-237.
Lee, I. (2004). How do Hong Kong English teachers correct errors in writing? Education Journal, 31(1), 153-169.
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1-16.
Lee, I. (2008a). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164.
Lee, I. (2008b). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students' affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers' written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 4-24.
McGrath, A. L., Pychyl, T. A., & Taylor, A. (2011). Writing helpful feedback: The influence of feedback type on students' perceptions and writing performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1-14.
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preference. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-365.
Rahimi, M. (2010). Iranian EFL students' perceptions and preferences for teachers' written feedback: Do students' ideas reflect teachers' practice? The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 75-98.
Rajoo, M. (2009). Feedback and revision: A protocol analysis. (Unpublished the degree of doctor of philosophy). University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (4th ed.) Longman.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
Srichanyachon, N. (2011). A comparative study of three revision methods in EFL writing. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(9), 1-8.
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). Teacher written feedback for L2 learners' writing development. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 12(1), 7-17.
Stannard, R. (2008) A new direction in feedback. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://hltmag.co.uk/dec08/mart04.htm
Straub, R. (2000). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7(1), 23-55.
Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers' comment types on students' revision. EFL Journal, 60(1), 34-41.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson, , 125-144.
Sze, C. (2002). A case study of the revision process of a reluctant ESL student writer. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 21-36.
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(2), 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2003). Students in the correction-free writing class. In H. C. Liou, J. Katchen, & H. Wang (Eds.), Lingua Tsing Hua (pp. 265-276). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
Treglia, M. O. (2008). Feedback on feedback: Exploring student responses to teachers' written commentary. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(1), 105-137.
Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning german. Foreign Language Annals, 43(4), 671-689.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
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2014-02-18公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2014-02-18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