淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


  查詢圖書館館藏目錄
系統識別號 U0002-2202200815281300
中文論文名稱 台灣英文作文教師校正學生錯誤能力之探討
英文論文名稱 Non-native English Speaking Teachers’ Written Error Correction: Quality and Causes of False Corrections
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 96
學期 1
出版年 97
研究生中文姓名 郭芳吟
研究生英文姓名 Fang-Ying Kuo
學號 693010562
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2008-01-21
論文頁數 71頁
口試委員 指導教授-張雅慧
委員-卓江
委員-黃月貴
中文關鍵字 錯誤校正  第二外語寫作  非母語英文教師 
英文關鍵字 Error correction  Second Language Writng  Non-native English speaking teacher 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 本研究旨在探討台灣英文作文教師校正學生錯誤的能力並探究教師常誤判的錯誤類別及其原因。研究中,共有四名大學英文系三年級英文作文教師參與。主要研究工具包括四名教師批改後的學生英文作文,共計二十四份,現場批改短文測驗、同步出聲思考紀錄(Think-aloud protocol)以及兩次的面談紀錄。研究結果發現,教師修正學生錯誤的表現在不同的情況下有其差異。從批改後學生作文中看來,教師校正學生錯誤的準確度達百分之七十八,但在批改短文測驗中,準確度則降至百分之四十八。另外,研究也發現教師常將他們的建議以校改錯誤的模式呈現。在分辨出教師的建議以及校正後,教師校正錯誤的準確度可提高至百分之八十五及百分之五十五。研究指出,教師最經常誤判的錯誤類別為用字以及句子結構。誤判錯誤以導致校正過多的原因包含教師對於英文用法的認知有錯或是不完整、對於型式上的過度重視、對於作文主題熟悉度和批改作文角度。而將錯誤誤解為其他類別的錯誤則多源於教師批改作文的習慣問題。最後,研究者針對教師校正錯誤表現差異的原因,以及改善教師校正錯誤的方法上提出見解。
英文摘要 The present investigation seeks to examine the quality of non-native English speaking teachers’ error correction and explore the causes of teachers’ unnecessary and inaccurate corrections. Four college professors participated in the study. Data were gathered from four sources: (1) twenty-four corrected student essays, (2) error correction task, (3) think-aloud protocol, and (4) interviews. The results revealed that the quality of teacher error correction differed in contextualized and de-contextualized contexts. While about 78% of the corrections on the student essays were accurate in location and correction, the accuracy rate of the corrections on the error correction task was as low as 48%. It was also found that teachers had the tendency to blur the distinction between suggestions and corrections and offer them in the same form. The accuracy rate of the correction in both contexts could increase by 8% after the suggestions were identified and withdrawn from the corrections. Causes of teachers’ unnecessary corrections were rather versatile, including false or partial understanding of English grammar and usage, focusing on style, content and correcting from readers’ perspective. On the other hand, teachers’ inaccurate corrections mainly resulted from the correction strategy undertaken. Possible factors contributing to the difference in the accuracy rate and implications to improve teachers’ error correction practice were discussed.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENT iv
LIST OF TABLES vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background...........1
1.2 Statement of Problem..........2
1.3 Purpose of the Study..........3
1.4 Research Questions............3
1.5 Significance of the Study.....4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Historical Development of Error Correction....5
2.2 Students’ View on Error Feedback.............6
2.3 Teachers’ View on Written Error Feedback.....8
2.4 Teacher Variables.............................9


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants...15
3.2 Instruments....16
3.3 Procedures.....18
3.4 Data Analysis..21

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
4.1 Answer to Research Question 1....26
4.2 Answer to Research Question 2....32
4.2.1 Unnecessary Correction—Quantitative Findings......32
4.2.2 Unnecessary Correction—Qualitative Findings.......34
4.2.2.1 False/Partial Understanding of English Grammar & Usage.... 36
4.2.2.2 Focusing on Style.......45
4.2.2.3 Focusing on Content ....47
4.2.2.4 Readers’ Perspective........48
4.2.3 Inaccurate Correction—Error Types and Causes.....52
4.3 Summary....... 55

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion.... 58
5.1.1 Quality of Teachers’ Error Correction...58
5.1.2 From Corrector to Readers and Facilitators...... 60
5.1.3 Limitations of NNES Teachers...61
5.1.4 Misinterpretation...62
5.2 Implications....62
5.3 Limitations of the Study........ 63
6.4 Suggestions for Future Studies.. 64

REFERENCES........ 65

APPENDIX A........ 69
APPENDIX B........ 70
APPENDIX C........ 71

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Types of teacher error correction............. 23
Table 2 Numerical count of teacher error correction... 28
Table 3 Distribution of unnecessary correction........ 32
Table 4 Distribution of unnecessary correction (excluding Beatrice) ..............................................34
Table 5 Themes and codes related to unnecessary error correction............................................ 35
Table 6 Definitions of codes identified............... 36
參考文獻 Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 9-38.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., and Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.

Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (2), 194-211.

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.

------------- (2004). Dialogue: a response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.

Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 59 (8), 414-422.

Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of EFL students. Highway One, 8 (1-2), 58-78.
Definition of bad air, (2004). Retrieved December 26, 2007, from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32875

Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R. and Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: description and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 155-182.

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.

-------------- (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.

-------------- (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long- term effects of written correction. In: Hyalnd, K., and Hyland, F., (Eds.), Feedback on second language writing: contexts and issues. CUP, New York, 1-104.

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.

Hacker, D. (n.d.). Language debates. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/pocket4e/subpages_language/thatwhich.html

Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62 (8), 387-398.

---------------------- (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 216-221.

Hyland, K., & Anan, E. (2006) Teachers’ perceptions of error: The effects of first language and experience. System, 34, 509-519.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39 (2), state of the art review article.

Ihde, T. W. (1995). Teaching irish to americans: focus on feedback. The Irish Year Book of Applied Linguistics,15, 81-89.

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (3), 305-313.

Kobayashi, T. (1992). Native and nonnative reactions to ESL compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (1), 81-112.

Kuo, J. H. (2004). A survey of the academic preparedness of Taiwanese high school English teachers for teaching writing. Unpublished master’s thesis submitted to the department of foreign languages and literature of National Tsing Hua University.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66 (2), 140-49.

Lasagabaster, D., and Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14 (2, 3), 112-127.

Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.

------- (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of hong kong. JournLal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312

Lindgren, E. & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2003). Stimulated recall as a trigger for increasing noticing and language awareness in the L2 writing classroom: A case study of two young female writers. Language Awareness, 12 (3&4), 172-15.

Miao, Y., Badger, R., and 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.

Myhill, D. & Jones, S. (2007). More than just error correction: Students’ perspectives on their revision process during writing. Written Communication, 24 (2), 323-343.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 83-95.

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia, 23 (1), 103-110.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against error correction. Language Learning, 46 (2), 327-369.

------------- (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.

------------- (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272

Topolsky, J (2007). Terrifying bike helmet filters bad air, increase fear. Retrieved January 10, 2008 from http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/12/terrifying-bike
-helmet-filters-bad-air-increases-fear

Wu, S. C. (2003). A study on the use of feedback in senior high school English composition: students’ preferences and teachers’ practices. Unpublished master’s thesis submitted to Department of English, National Kaohsiung Normal University.

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2013-02-26公開。
  • 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務。


  • 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