本研究探討間接評語(indirect feedback)之明確度對英語學習者搭配字(collocations)習得的成效。此研究之範圍以動詞-名詞搭配字(verb-noun collocations)為主。
研究目的主要在探討各類評語對學習者寫作上的影響，另外，也針對學生評語理解 (comprehensibility)與否與其立即錯誤訂正(immediate error revision)的相關性做一探討。因此，研究問題有四：(1)就詞彙學習而言，批改學生錯誤對寫作是否有幫助? (2)不同的評語內容對學生搭配字的使用情況是否造成差異? (3)評語內容的明確度對學生立即的錯誤訂正是否有影響? (4)學生對評語的理解與其立即的錯誤訂正是否有相關性(correlation)?  
為探討以上研究問題，此研究落實以下幾項數位機制：(1)文法檢查工具(grammar checker): 學生在IWiLL繳交作文後，此工具可以自動偵測學生文章中動詞-名詞搭配字錯誤； (2)教師評語庫(teacher comment bank): 針對偵測到的錯誤，提供自動化評語。此研究將評語分成三類，並以內容明確度不同作區別。第一類評語的內容指出學生的錯誤位置與錯誤類別；第二類評語內容，除包含錯誤位置與錯誤類別外，另增加了錯誤類別的定義；第三類評語內容，除包含錯誤位置、錯誤類別與錯誤類別的定義外，另提供五個相關例句；(3) 學生立即回饋機制(immediate student feedback mechanism): 用以引導學生表示其是否了解教師評語，並追蹤學生立即錯誤訂正是否正確。
研究結果顯示，學生使用搭配字的成效，以收到第三類評語的組別表現最為明顯。此外，另外兩組，並無明顯差異。研究結果也顯示，在評語裡提供相關例句對學生立即的錯誤訂正也有明顯成效。本研究並根據上述結果，在英語教學上提供了相關的建議作為未來更進一步的研究方向。

This thesis is an investigation of the effects of degrees of explicitness of indirect feedback on English learners’ acquisition on collocations, particularly on verb-noun collocations (Liu, 2002).  The purposes of the study are to investigate the effects of various types of feedback on learners’ writing performance and to investigate the comprehensibility of the teachers’ feedback and its impact on learners’ success in immediate collocation error revision.  Thus, the study is guided by the four research questions: (1) Is error correction beneficial to the improvement of learners’ English writing at the lexical level? (2) Are there differences across feedback conditions in students’ writing performance in terms of collocation improvement? (3) Does the level of feedback explicitness also have an impact on students’ immediate error revision?  (4) What are the effects of comprehensibility of the teachers’ feedback and how is the comprehensibility of the teachers’ feedback related to learners’ immediate error revision?  
To address these questions, I implement several digital tools in an existing online English learning platform called IWiLL and utilize two instruments, a guided composition and a sentence translation task, to elicit students’ collocation production.  The tools include: (1) grammar checker that automatically detects collocation errors in the writing that learners submit to their teachers over IWiLL; (2) a teacher comment bank to consistently provide the same feedback content to the learners concerning the detected miscollocations.  In total, there are three types of feedback, varying in feedback content.  The simplest one indicates error location and error type, the next feedback types offers metalinguistic feedback, and the most explicit one provides linguistic input in the form of example sentences; (3) an immediate student feedback mechanism.  The tool elicits the learners’ understanding of the teacher feedback and their immediate self-correction on the detected miscollocaiton as a means of determining whether the feedback was noticed and understood.  Each of these steps supported by these tools was recorded and available for analysis. 
Results of the study indicate that there is substantial, highly significant improvement on both subjects and immediate error revision and their subsequent collocation production in the group receiving feedback containing positive linguistic input.  On the other hand, there were no significant differences in editing success between the group that received simple feedback and the group received metalinguistic feedback, both without positive example sentences.  Moreover, the findings suggested that providing adequate linguistic input for learners benefits the development of students’ collocational competence.  The study provides suggestions and some directions for future research to enhance English teaching.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT iii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xi


CHAPTER
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation and Statement of the Problem 1
1.2 Scope of the Study 4
1.3 Background 4
    1.3.1 Importance of Collocation Knowledge in Language 
          Learning 4
    1.3.2 Miscollocation 5
1.4 Purposes and Research Questions of the Study 6
1.5 Organization of the Thesis 7
1.6 Summary of Chapter One 8

2.LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Background 9
    2.1.1 Direct Feedback and Indirect Feedback 9
    2.1.2 Effects of Error Feedback on Students’ Writing  
          11
    2.1.3 Students’ Preferences on Teacher Feedback 15
    2.1.4 Comprehensibility of Teacher Feedback 18
    2.1.5 Systematic Marking of Learner’s Written Texts 19
2.2 Feedback in Computer Assisted Language Learning 22 
2.3. Corpora in L2 Vocabulary Teaching and Learning 24
    2.3.1 Pedagogical Benefits of the Data Driven Approach 
          25
    2.3.2 Problems of A Conventional Data Driven Approach  
          in Vocabulary Teaching 26
2.4 Summary of Chapter Two 27

3.METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 29
    3.3.1 Research Questions 30 
3.2 Overview of the Research Design 31
3.3 Data Collection 32
    3.3.1 A Web-based Writing Environment 32
    3.3.2 Students’ Writing Environment 33
    3.3.3 Teachers’ Marking System on IWiLL 34
3.4 The Digital Tools Designed for the Study 36
    3.4.1 The Design of Grammar Checker 36
    3.4.2 The Testing of Grammar Checker Rules on English 
          TLC  38
    3.4.3 The Immediate Student Feedback Mechanism (ISFM) 
          40
3.5 The Experiment of the Study 43
    3.5.1 Selection of Context 43
    3.5.2 Subjects 44
    3.5.3 Grouping Principles 44
    3.5.4 Feedback Variations 45
    3.5.5 Diagnostic Test 49
    3.5.6 Procedures 51
    3.5.7 The Flow of Experimental Design 53
3.6 Data Analysis 56
3.7 Summary of Chapter Three 57

4.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Research Question One 59
    4.1.1 Results 60
    4.1.2 Discussion 63
4.2 Research Question Two 64
    4.2.1 Results 65
    4.2.2 Discussion 66
4.3 Research Question Three 67
    4.3.1 Results 68
    4.3.2 Discussion 70
4.4 Research Question Four 72
    4.4.1 Results 73
    4.4.2 Discussion 77
4.5 Summary of Chapter Four 79

5.CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 General Discussion 80 
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 81
5.3 Limitations of the Research 82
5.4 Suggestions for Future Studies 83
5.5 Conclusions 83

BIBLIOGRAPHY 85
APPENDIX A: Diagnostic Test 91
APPENDIX B: Translation Items in Translation Exercise 92
APPENDIX C: Writing Assignments over the Three Weeks 93
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning Platform 
Main Page…………………………………………………………………33
Figure 2. The Teacher’s Interface for Marking Student Essays …………………… 35
Figure 3. Space for Comment Modification…………………………………………36
Figure 4. The Immediate Student Feedback Mechanism (ISFM)……………………42
Figure 5. Example Sentences in SDES Type of Feedback....……………………… .49
Figure 6. The Procedures of a Session……………………………………………….54
Figure 7. Error Ratio in Feedback I………………………………………………….62
Figure 8. Error Ratio in Feedback II…………………………………………………62
Figure 9. Feedback Ratio in Feedback III……………………………………………62
Figure 10. Error Improvement among the Three Groups over the Three Weeks…….63
Figure 11. Feedback Type and Immediate Collocation Revision in Week 2…………70
Figure 12. Feedback Type and Immediate Collocation Revision in Week 3....…….. 70
Figure 13. Feedback Comprehensibility among the Three Groups on Version 1……74
Figure 14. Feedback Comprehensibility among the Three Groups on Version 2……74







LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Precision of the Rules for Grammar Checker ….………………………… 40
Table 2. Detailed Description of the Three Types of Feedback …………………… 48
Table 3. Result of Diagnostic Test………………………………………………….. 51
Table 4. Session Breakdown…………………………………………………………53
Table 5. Collocation Errors Ratio over the Three Weeks…………………………….61
Table 6. Error Reduction in Production Tasks……………………………………….65
Table 7. Feedback Type and Immediate Correct Collocation Revision .…………… 69
Table 8. Feedback Comprehensibility Among the Three Groups……………………73
Table 9. Feedback Comprehensibility and Immediate of Collocation Revision in Feedback I…………………………………………………………………75
Table 10. Feedback Comprehensibility and Immediate Collocation Revision in Feedback II………………………………………………………………. 76
Table 11. Feedback Comprehensibility and Immediate Collocation Revision in Feedback III……………………………………………………………….76

Allwright, R. L. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In On TESOL’75: New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education, eds M. K. Burt and H. C. Dulay, p.96-106. TESOL, Washington, DC.
Berry, R. (1995). Language teachers and metalinguistic terminology.  Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Teacher Education in Second Language Teaching, Hong Kong.
Brandl, K., K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 192-211.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations
in written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 251-261.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386. 
Chandler, J. (2000). The efficacy of error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L2 student writing. Paper represented at the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC.
Chang, Y. F. (2002). An investigation of parts of speech in interlanguage: subordinators in Taiwan learners’ English writing. Thesis for Master of Art at Tamkang University.
Chen, J.F. (1997). Computer generated error feedback and writing process: A link. TESL-EJ, 2 (3). [electronic document] Available at http://violet.berkeley.edu/~cwp/TESL-EJ/ej07/a1.html. Accessed 10/19/97. 
Chien, F. Y. (2003). A study of input and second language lexical acquisition. Unpublished MA, Tamkang University.
Coady, J., Magoto, J., Hubbard, P., Graney, J., & Makhtari, K. (1993). High frequency
 	vocabulary and reading proficiency in ESL readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & 
J. Coady (Eds), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning, 217-228. 
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cobb, T. (2003). Do corpus-based electronic dictionaries replace concordancers? In Morrison, B.., Green, G., & Motteram, G. (Eds. Directions in CALL: experience, experiments, evaluation. Polytechnic University: Hong Kong.
Cohen, A. D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990).  Feedback on compositions: teacher and 
	student verbal reports, in B. Krall (Ed.) Second Language Writing. Research 
	insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunkel, P. (1991). Computer-assisted language learning and testing: research issues 
	and practice. Newbury House Press.  
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 (p.178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). Commentary on students revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 
	315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft 
	composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8(1), 41-61.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in 
	an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344.
Garrett, N. (1987). A Psycholinguistic Perspective on Grammar and CALL. Modern 
	media in foreign language education: theory and implementation. Ed. Wm. Flint 
	Smith. Lincolnwood, IL: National textbook (p.169-196). 
Groot, P. J. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. 
	Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 60-81.
Hadley, G. (2001). Concordancing in Japanese TEFL: unlocking the power of 
data-driven learning. Retrieved from <http://www.nuis.ac.jp/%7Ehadley/publication/jlearner/jlearner.htm>
Hasselgard, H. (2001). Corpora and their use in research and teaching. Retrieved from 
	http://folk.uio.no/hhasselg/UV-corpus.htm.
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, 
	288-308.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: assessing learner 
	receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language
    Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign 
	language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255-276.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: recent 
	theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hill, J. (1999). Collocational competence? English Teaching Professional, 11, 3-6.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (3), 255-286.
Johns, T. (2002). Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis.” Paper Presented at the 4th International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz, 19-24, July 2000.
Kao, K. H. (2002). On bare singulars in Taiwan learners' English writing. Unpublished MA thesis, Tamkang University.
Kepner, C. G (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. 
Kita, K., & Ogata, H. (1997). Collocations in language learning: corpus-based 
	automatic compilation of collocations and bilingual collocation concordancer. 
	Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(3), 229-238. 
Lin, H. L. (2002). On the omission of be in Taiwan learners’ English writing. Unpublished MA thesis, Tamkang University.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2000). An introduction to second language 
	acquisition research. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern 
	Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: some 
	implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, 465-477.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level 
	writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Liou, H.C. (1991). Investigation of using text-critiquing program in a process-oriented writing class. CALICO Journal, 10(4), 17-38  
Liu, L. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Unpublished MA thesis, Tamkang University.
Mullett, T. (1983). Fest feedback on T101. Teaching at a Distance, 24, 72-76.
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The 
	Modern Language Journal, 77, 330-339.
Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: the effects of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annual, 28, 337-347.  
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Learning. 
	Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their 
	written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press (p.245).
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect 
	on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–91.
Roberts, D. (1996). Feedback on assignments. Distance Education, 17(1), 95-116.
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Shei, C. C.,& Pain, H. (2000). An ESL writer’s collocational aid. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 167-182.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.
Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 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, 111-122.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
Wible, D. (2001). “SLA research, second language writing and web-based learning environment” in Language Research and English Teaching: Challenges and Solutions. Crane published (169-180).
Wible, D., Kuo, C., Liu, & Tsao N. L. (2001). “A web-based EFL writing environment: Exploiting information for learners, teachers and researchers.” Computer and Education, 37, 297-315.
Wible, D., Kuo C. H., Chien, F. Y. & Taso, N. L. (2001). Automating Repeated Exposure to Target Vocabulary for Second Language Learners. ICALT 2001,127-128.