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 U0002-2206201109534800
中文論文名稱 錯誤訂正逐字稿及整體性回饋對大學生口語能力之成效
英文論文名稱 The Effectiveness of Feedbacks on College Students’ Speaking: Corrective Transcription and Holistic 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 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 譚延綸
研究生英文姓名 Yen-lun Tan
學號 696110104
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2011-06-15
論文頁數 84頁
口試委員 指導教授-張雅慧
委員-王藹玲
委員-胡潔芳
中文關鍵字 口語訓練  逐字稿  回饋  自我覺察 
英文關鍵字 Speaking training  Transcription  Feedback  Awareness 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 本論文目的在於探討利用錯誤訂正逐字稿、整體性回饋以及傳統聽講教學等三種不同的回饋方式是否能有效提昇大學生英文口語能力。本研究以四十三名淡江大學的大一學生為研究對象,一班主修德文,一班主修西班牙文,另一班則是主修公共行政,前兩班為實驗組,後一班為對照組,利用標準化托福電腦化測驗中的口語測驗題目作為測驗與訓練工具,且給三組學生之口語測驗回答給予不同的回饋方式。訓練時間為期九週,三組學生均需接受事前講習、填寫背景調查問卷、前測與後測。而其中兩組實驗組在接受後測之後,均需另外填寫態度問卷,並研究者隨機分別從兩組各抽樣五名學生,共十人進行訪談。研究結果發現,三種不同的回饋方式對於大學生回答托福口語測驗的總得分以及其回答內容之句法複雜度並無顯著提昇,同時兩組實驗組對於接受不同回饋方式的態度亦無顯著不同。另外,雖然三組的托福口語測驗總得分並無顯著進步,但是接受整體性回饋的實驗組在「內容發展」的評分向度中有顯著成長,而接受錯誤訂正逐字稿的另一實驗組在「語言使用」的評分向度中亦有明顯較高的得分,而接受傳統聽講教學的控制組在各評分向度上都無顯著進步。最後,研究者針對本研究結果提出解釋,並提供對於英文口語訓練和不同回饋方式於教學運用的建議。
英文摘要 The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of feedbacks: Corrective transcription and holistic feedback on improving college students’ English speaking ability, using the standardized TOEFL iBT speaking questions. Forty-three freshmen students from three different majors of Tamkang University were the subjects of the study and were randomly assigned to two experimental groups and a control group. All subjects were required to attend the orientation, fill in a background questionnaire, and take the pretest and posttest while the experimental groups were given an additional survey and five participants from the two groups were selected respectively for the follow-up interviews. The results indicated no significant improvement from the pretest to the posttest in the overall scores and syntactical complexity of their responses among all three groups. Second, the attitude between the two experimental groups did not differ greatly from each other regardless of the type of feedback they received. However, participants who received holistic feedbacks demonstrated a significant improvement in the content while participants who received corrective transcriptions showed improvement in the language use. Further pedagogical implications in speaking training and the effective of feedbacks were discussed at the end of the study.
論文目次 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENT iv
LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 SPEAKING PROFICIENCY 6
2.1.1 Overview of Speaking Proficiency Research 6
2.1.2 Competence in Speaking 7
2.1.3 Speaking Section in Language Tests 8
2.2 ERROR AWARENESS AND CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK 12
2.2.1 Error Awareness 12
2.2.2 Corrective Feedback in SLA 14
2.3 RELATED PREVIOUS EMPIRICAL STUDIES 15
2.3.1 Use of Transcription 15
2.3.2 Role of Awareness 17

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 20
3.1 PARTICIPANTS 20
3.2 MATERIALS 21
3.2.1 Background Questionnaire 21
3.2.2 Pretest and Posttest 22
3.2.3 Training Questions 24
3.2.4 Tracking Sheet 24
3.2.5 Survey 26
3.2.6 Interviews 26
3.3 PROCEDURE 27
3.3.1 Orientation 29
3.3.2 Training 30
3.4 INTER-RATER RELIABILITY 32
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 33

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35
4.1 BACKGROUND OF THE PARTICIPANTS 36
4.2 PERFORMANCE ON THE TOEFL IBT SCORES IN THE PRETEST AND POSTTEST 39
4.3 PERFORMANCE ON SYNTACTICAL COMPLEXITY IN THE PRETEST AND POSTTEST 41
4.4 PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTIONS TO THE STUDY 43
4.4.1 Feedback from the Experimental Group A 44
4.4.2 Feedback from the Experimental Group B 46
4.4.3 Attitude between the Experimental Group A and B 48
4.5 INTERVIEW 52
4.6 DISCUSSION 57
4.6.1 Nature of Feedbacks 58
4.6.2 Power of Awareness 59

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 67
5.1 MAJOR FINDINGS 67
5.2 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 69
5.3 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES 70

REFERENCES 72

APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE 77
APPENDIX 2 TRACKING SHEET 78
APPENDIX 3 TOEFL INDEPENDENT SPEAKING RUBRICS 79
APPENDIX 4 SURVEY 80
APPENDIX 5 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 81
APPENDIX 6 PROJECT PLAN 82
APPENDIX 7 EXAMPLES OF HOLISTIC FEEDBACKS AND CORRECTIVE TRANSCRIPTION 83
APPENDIX 8 ENGLISH PROFICIENCY TESTS EQUIVALENCY 84

LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 Profile of the Participants 20
Table 2 Training Questions 23
Table 3 Research Procedure to the Control Group, Experimental Group A, and Experimental Group B 27
Table 4 A Sample Answer 29
Table 5 Levels od GEPT of the Participants 37
Table 6 Mean and SD of TOEFL iBT Scores and MTUL in Pretest 38
Table 7 Results of One-way ANOVA in Pretest 38
Table 8 Mean and SD on the TOEFL iBT Scores in Posttest 39
Table 9 Results of Two-way ANOVA on the TOEFL iBT Scores 39
Table 10 Mean and SD on the MTUL in Posttest 41
Table 11 Results of Two-way ANOVA on the MTUL 41
Table 12 Mean and SD of Question 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Experimental Group A 44
Table 13 Experimental Group A Responses to Question 4 (A multiple choices questions) 45
Table 14 Hours Spent Outside of Class: Experimental Group A 45
Table 15 Mean and SD of Question 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of Experimental Group B 46
Table 16 Experimental Group B Responses to Question 4 (A multiple choices questions) 47
Table 17 Hours Spent Outside of Class: Experimental Group B 47
Table 18 Significance Level of Question 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 between Experimental Group A and B 48
Table 19 Responses to Question 4 (A multiple choices question) from Both Experimental Groups 49
Table 20 Hours Spent Outside of Class: Experimental Group A and B 50
Table 21 Responses to Question 9 (A True or False question) 50
Table 22 Responses to Question 10 51
Table 23 Results of Paired T-test from the Three Subcategories of the TOEFL iBT Speaking Rubrics between the Three Groups 61
參考文獻 ACTFL announces ACE college credit recommendation for official ACTFL OPI rating. (n.d.). Retrieved March 19, 2011 from http://www.languagetesting.com/actfl_article.htm
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the
communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11, 1–13.
Brown, H. D. (2007a). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2007b). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 53-63.
Chang, J. H. (2008, May 12). 新托福考倒亞洲學生。聯合報。Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=124861
Chen, M. W. (2007). The impact of Automatic Speech Technology on contrastive stress among adult EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. Da Yeh University, ChangHua, Taiwan.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactical complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education, 5(1), 6-13.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking task for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297-320.
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising task. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351.
Gaies, S. J. (1980) T-unit analysis in second language research: Application, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 53-60.
GEPT-The General English Proficiency Test. (n.d.). Recognition. Retrieve September 16, 2010 from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT/recognition.htm
Grove, C. (1999). Focusing on form in the communicative classroom: An output-centered model of instruction for oral skills development. Hispania, 82(4), 817-829.
Halleck, G. B. (1995). Assessing oral proficiency: A comparison of holistic and objective measures. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 223-234.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.
Herron, C. (1981). The treatment of error in oral activities: Developing instructional strategies. The French Review, 55(1), 6-16.
Huang, S. C. (2008). Raising learner-initiated attention to the formal aspects of their oral production through transcription and stimulated reflection. IRAL, 46, 375-392.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Rep. No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Recent measures in syntactic development. In M. Lester (Ed.), Readings in applied transformation grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239-278.
Kang, H. S. (2009). The relative efficacy of explicit and implicit feedback in the learning of a less-commonly-taught foreign language. IRAL, 47, 303-324.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann.
Kuo, Y. J. (2006). Implementing a Task-based Approach with senior high school students: Characteristics of interactions and students' perceptions. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Tsing Hua University, HsinChu, Taiwan.
Lambacher, S. (1999). A CALL tool for improving second language acquisition of English consonants by Japanese learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(2), 137-156.
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1985). Oral-proficiency Testing: A critical analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 69(4), 337-345.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. New York, NY: Longman.
Lin, J. Q., & Chang, J.H. (2008, May 10). 新托福台灣排名 輸中港星韓。聯合報。Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=124709
Lord, G. (2009). Second-language awareness and development during study abroad: A case study. Hispania, 92(1), 127-141.
LTTC-The Language Training & Testing Center. (n.d.). GEPT score reports. Retrieve September 16, 2010 from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/results.htm
Nicholas Sampson (1999). Way Ahead: A listening and speaking course. Macmillan Publisher, China: Hong Kong.
Panova, I., & Lyster. R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
Sato, K. (2003). Improving our students’ speaking skills: Using selective error correction and group work to reduce anxiety and encourage real communication. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED475-518).
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-64.
TOEFL iBT Tips. (2008). TOEFL iBT Test Tips. In TOEFL iBT Test Preparation. Retrieved September 24, 2010 from http://www.ets.org/toefl
TOEIC. (n.d.). Statistic reports. Retrieved September 24, 2010 from http://www.toeic.com.tw/compile_info.jsp
TOEIC Speaking Test Directions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2010 from http://www.toeic.com.tw/campaign/sw/demo/s_top.html
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456.
Truscott, J. (2005). The continuing problems of oral grammar correction. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(2), 17-23. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from http://www.tprstories.com/ijflt/IJFLTSpring05.pdf
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Baskurkmer, H. (2008). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37, 82-98.
Wang, L. J. (2008). Improving English speaking performance in the college classroom through the use of self-monitoring and portfolios. Unpublished master’s thesis. Chao Yang University of Technology, TaiChung, Taiwan.
Weng, F. R. (2008). An investigation of oral communication strategies of college English majors in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yoffe, L. (1997). An overview of the ACTFL proficiency interview: A test of speaking ability? JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 1(2), 2-13. Retrieved from http://jalt.org/test/yof_1.htm
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2011-06-27公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2011-12-31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