§ Browsing ETD Metadata
  
System No. U0002-2206201109534800
Title (in Chinese) 錯誤訂正逐字稿及整體性回饋對大學生口語能力之成效
Title (in English) The Effectiveness of Feedbacks on College Students’ Speaking: Corrective Transcription and Holistic Feedback
Other Title
Institution 淡江大學
Department (in Chinese) 英文學系碩士班
Department (in English) Department of English
Other Division
Other Division Name
Other Department/Institution
Academic Year 99
Semester 2
PublicationYear 100
Author's name (in Chinese) 譚延綸
Author's name(in English) Yen-lun Tan
Student ID 696110104
Degree 碩士
Language English
Other Language
Date of Oral Defense 2011-06-15
Pagination 84page
Committee Member advisor - Yea-Huey Chang
co-chair - 王藹玲
co-chair - 胡潔芳
Keyword (inChinese) 口語訓練
逐字稿
回饋
自我覺察
Keyword (in English) Speaking training
Transcription
Feedback
Awareness
Other Keywords
Subject
Abstract (in Chinese)
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。
Abstract (in English)
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.
Other Abstract
Table of Content (with Page Number)
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
References
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
Terms of Use
Within Campus
On-campus access to my hard copy thesis/dissertation is open immediately
Agree to authorize disclosure on campus
Duration for delaying release from 2011-12-31
Release immediately
Outside the Campus
I grant the authorization for the public to view/print my electronic full text with royalty fee and contact me for receiving the payment.
Duration for delaying release from 2011-12-31
 Top

If you have any questions, please contact us!

Library: please call (02)2621-5656 ext. 2487 or email