The Effects of Corrective Feedback on Taiwan High School EFL Low-achievers' Paragraph Writing: "Direct Correction" vs. "Reformulation"

教師回饋對台灣高中EFL低成就學生段落寫作之效用：「直接訂正法」與「語意重述法」

10.7084/LIS.201112.0055

許凱絨(Kai-Jung Hsu)；葉潔宇(Chieh-Yue Yeh)

低成就學生 ； 段落寫作 ； 語意重述 ； 訂正回饋 ； low-achievers ； paragraph writing ； reformulation ； corrective feedback

語文與國際研究

8期（2011 / 12 / 01）

53 - 82

英文

本研究針對台灣EFL低成就學生之段落寫作，比較「直接訂正法」與「語意重述法」兩種寫作回饋之成效。本研究對象為台北市某高職學生，共56名學生全程參與這項從2009年9月到2010年1月的研究。進行修改寫作時，教師對實驗組使用「語意重述法」，學生比較原稿語老師保留學生原意但改寫成符合英文語法的段落，並將發現的文法錯誤記錄並自行訂正；對照組則運用「直接訂正法」，學生審視老師直接在上面訂正的原稿。經過看圖英文段落寫作的前測與後側、實驗組與對照組後測結果比較、以及針對實驗組的訪談，研究結果如下：（1）整體性評量上，「語意重述法」對學生改進寫作較為有效；（2）兩組中程度較差之低成就學生進步程度均優於程度較好之低成就學生，尤其實驗組之程度較差者進步程度猶勝於對照組的；（3）「直接訂正法」對減少學生文法錯誤之功效優於「語意重述法」；（4）絕大多數參與者認為「語意重述法」有助增進寫作能力。論文最後提出此研究在教學上的意涵。

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ”direct correction” and that of ”reformulation” on Taiwan EFL low-achievers' paragraph writing. Fifty-six students in vocational high school in Taipei City participated in this study from Sep. 2009 through Jan. 2010. When conducting revision activities, the teacher implemented the ”reformulation” technique in the experimental group. The students compared the originals with the reformulated versions given by the teacher, and detected, recorded, and corrected all the grammatical errors mainly in their own. The control group received ”explicit correction”, examining their originals with the teacher's corrections on them. With the pretest and the post-test on a paragraph-length English picture description, the comparison of the post-test results between the experimental and control groups, and interviews with the experimental group, the results are as follows: First, in holistic rating, ”reformulation” was more helpful than ”direct correction” in improving the participants' writing performance. Second, the low-achievers with lower proficiency benefited more from ”reformulation” than those with better proficiency. Third, ”direct correction” was more effective than ”reformulation” in reducing the participants' grammatical errors. Fourth, the majority in the experimental group were positive of ”reformulation” as a way to improve writing. Finally, some implications for pedagogy were provided.

1. Lee, R. C.T. (2009). 英文作文 兩萬多顆蛋的背後。聯合報《民意論壇》。98年7月18日取 自： http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_MAIN_ ID= 12&f_SUB _ID= 27&f_ART_ID=178916。
2. 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,9,227-257.
3. Bitchener, J.,Young, S.,Cameron, D.(2005).The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing.Journal of Second Language Writing,14,191-205.
4. Celce-Murcia, M.(Ed.)(2001).Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.Boston, MA:Heinle & Heinle.
5. Cohen, A. D.(1989).Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing.Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers,11(2),1-9.
6. Cohen, A. D.(1983).Reformulating second-language compositions: A potential source of input for the learner
7. Cohen, A. D.(1982).Writing like a native: The process of reformulation
8. Doughty, C.(Ed.),Williams, J.(Ed.)(1998).Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
9. Ellis, R.(2001).Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction.Language Learning,51(1),1-46.
10. Ferris, D.(1999).The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott.Journal of Second Language Writing,8,1-11.
11. Ferris, D.,Roberts, B.(2001).Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be?.Journal of Second Language Writing,10,161-184.
12. Gass, S. M.(1988).Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies.Applied linguistics,9,198-217.
13. Guénette, D.(2007).Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing.Journal of Second Language Writing,16(1),40-53.
14. Huang, Y. P.(2006).National Taiwan Normal University.
15. Kroll, B.(Ed.)(1990).Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
16. Levenston, E. A.(1978).Error analysis of free composition: The theory and the practice.Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics,4(1),1-11.
17. Miao, Y.,Badger, R.,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.
18. Naeini, J.(2008).Error Correction: An indication of consciousness-raising.Novitas-Royal,2(2),120-137.
19. Polio, C.,Fleck, C.,Leder, N.(1998)."If only I had more time": ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions.Journal of Second Language Writing,7,43-68.
20. Qi, D. S.,Lapkin, S.(2001).Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task.Journal of Second Language Writing,10(4),277-303.
21. Robinson, P.(1995).Attention, memory, and the "Noticing" Hypothesis.Language Learning,45,283-331.
22. Rosen, L. M.(1987).Developing correctness in student writing: Alternatives to the errorhunt.The English Journal,76(3),62-69.
23. Sachs, R. R.(2003).Michigan State Universit.
24. Schmidt, R.(1990).The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics,11,129-158.
25. Semke, H.(1984).The effects ofthe red pen.Foreign Language Annals,17,195-202.
26. Swain, M.,Lapkin, S.(1995).Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning.Applied Linguistics,16(3),371-391.
27. Truscott, J.(2007).The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately.Journal of Second Language Writing,16,255-272.
28. Weltig, M. S.(2004).Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment.English Language Institute, University of Michogan.
29. Wu. C. P.(2003).Taiwan,National Kaohsiung Normal University.