以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：73

、訪客IP：3.133.157.220

姓名	高千文(Chian-Wen Kao)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	學習與教學研究所
論文名稱	再思集中錯誤回饋成效之決定因素-以英語為外語寫作為例 (Rethinking Focus: An Investigation into the Determinants of Focused Feedback Effectiveness in EFL Writing)
相關論文	★ 讀者選擇閱讀題材的自主性對外語詞彙偶發學習的影響 ★ 應用搭配字學習工具於網路瀏覽以提升英語學習者對搭配字之察覺能力 ★ 樂高機器人多媒體教材設計、發展與可用性評估 ★ The Missing Pieces around Collocation: A Comparative Study of Data-Driven Learning Resources for Learning Collocation-Specific Colligations ★ 再思非刻意字彙習得裡的字詞頻率:字形變化及多詞句型的影響 ★ An investigation of L2 academic readers′ awareness of stance markers and writer′s stance toward cited research ★ On the Effects of Task-Based Instruction on Vocabulary Learning: A Study of EFL Junior High School Students ★ Effects of Reading the Same Story First in L1 Then in L2 on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning
檔案	[Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載] 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。
摘要(中)	在第二語言寫作文獻裡，文法糾正回饋研究顯示集中回饋(即糾正某一特定錯誤類別)比非集中回饋(即糾正所有錯誤類別)還要有效(e.g. Ellis et al., 2008; Farrokhi & Sattarpour, 2011; Frear, 2010; Sheen et al., 2009)。而根據先前研究者的建議，糾正回饋為集中或非集中，取決於所糾正錯誤類別的數量為何(Ellis, 2009; Ferris, 2010)，而先前集中回饋研究則只針對某一種錯誤類別進行糾正(e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Rouhi & Samiei, 2010; Sheen, 2007)。然而，集中回饋效益可能取決於所糾正的某一種錯誤類別範圍多大或多小(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012)，而所謂「一種錯誤類別」的概念在集中回饋研究裡卻相當模糊。由於先前研究並未探討錯誤類別概念在集中回饋效益之影響為何，故有關錯誤類別概念之探討應該能對集中回饋文獻提供一些洞見，並幫助我們進一步瞭解集中回饋效益。 本論文旨在探討錯誤類別概念在集中回饋效益之影響為何。本論文進行兩組實驗來分別探討集中回饋在文法規則導向錯誤(即英文冠詞錯誤和主動詞一致性錯誤)以及詞彙導向錯誤(即動詞-名詞搭配錯誤)之效益為何。第一組探討集中回饋在文法規則導向錯誤的實驗顯示，當冠詞錯誤範圍縮小至不定冠詞(a)用以表示指示物為第一次提及，和定冠詞(the)用以表示前指照應的相關錯誤時，集中回饋是有效的。此外，受試者不因冠詞錯誤的糾正而減少他們在接下來寫作上冠詞的使用。而另一方面，當冠詞錯誤範圍擴大至包含不定冠詞(a)用以表示指示物為第一次提及，以及定冠詞(the)用以表示前指照應和第一次提及的相關錯誤時，集中回饋則是無效的。然而，察覺到冠詞錯誤類別的受試者，其冠詞使用的表現，比起沒察覺到該錯誤類別的受試者還要好。 集中回饋效益在主動詞一致性錯誤的結果大致上與冠詞錯誤的結果相似。當主動詞一致性錯誤範圍縮小時(只有分別糾正copula be或lexical verb錯誤)，集中回饋顯示有效。此外，受試者不因主動詞一致性錯誤的糾正而減少他們在接下來寫作上主動詞一致性結構的使用。另一方面，當主動詞一致性錯誤範圍擴大時(糾正所有copula be和lexical verb錯誤)，集中回饋則顯示無效。然而，察覺到主動詞一致性錯誤類別的受試者，其主動詞一致性結構使用的表現，比起沒察覺到該錯誤類別的受試者還要好。 第二組探討集中回饋在詞彙導向錯誤的實驗顯示，當糾正三到四個動詞-名詞搭配錯誤時，集中回饋是有效的。另一方面，只糾正一至兩個動詞-名詞搭配錯誤時，集中回饋則是無效的。然而，在只產生一個搭配錯誤並受到糾正的受試者裡，察覺到動詞-名詞搭配錯誤類別的受試者，其動詞-名詞搭配的使用，比起沒察覺到該錯誤類別的受試者還要好。 綜合以上結果，本論文提出下列三項主要發現：(一)、當冠詞錯誤和主動詞一致性錯誤範圍縮小，以及三到四個動詞-名詞搭配錯誤受到糾正時，集中回饋顯示有效。(二)、當冠詞錯誤和主動詞一致錯誤範圍擴大，以及只有一個動詞-名詞搭配錯誤受到糾正時，學習者對於所糾正錯誤類別的察覺對於回饋效益是有影響的。(三)、當冠詞錯誤和主動詞一致性錯誤範圍縮小時，學習者不會因受到集中回饋的糾正，而在接下來的寫作裡，避免使用該語言結構。本論文根據上述研究發現，對書面糾正回饋研究以及相關教學實踐應用等議題進行討論。
摘要(英)	In the literature on second language writing, corrective feedback studies have shown focused feedback (which targets one specific error type for correction) to be more effective than unfocused feedback (which corrects all grammar error types) (e.g. Ellis et al., 2008; Farrokhi & Sattarpour, 2011; Frear, 2010; Sheen et al., 2009). The criterion for judging whether the feedback is focused or unfocused, according to what corrective feedback researchers have suggested, depends on the number of error types targeted for correction (Ellis, 2009; Ferris, 2010), and focused feedback has been operationalized to correct only “one error type” (e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Rouhi & Samiei, 2010; Sheen, 2007). The concept of “one error type”, however, remains unclear in focused feedback studies because the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of focused feedback practices might depend on how narrowly an error type is defined (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Since none of the focused feedback studies has investigated the notion of error type in feedback effectiveness, an investigation into the notion of error type may shed new light on focused feedback literature and advance our understanding of focused feedback effectiveness. This dissertation accordingly, is an investigation of how the notion of error type influences the effectiveness of focused feedback. Two experiments were conducted to investigate focused feedback effects on rule-based errors (i.e. English article errors and subject-verb agreement errors) and lexically-based errors (i.e. verb-noun collocation errors) separately. The first experiment conducted to investigate the feedback effects on the rule-based errors showed that focused feedback was effective for article errors when article errors were narrowly limited to errors involving the indefinite article a for the first mention and definite article the for subsequent mentions. Additionally, learners whose article errors were corrected did not reduce the article usages in their subsequent writing. On the other hand, focused feedback was ineffective for article errors when article errors were broadly defined including errors involving the indefinite article for the first mention and the definite article for subsequent mentions as well as for the introductory use. However, learners who perceived the targeted error type of focused feedback on the broadly defined article errors made more improvements than those who did not perceive the targeted error type. The results of focused feedback on the subject-verb agreement errors generally share similarity with results of focused feedback on the article errors. Focused feedback was effective for the narrowly defined subject-verb agreement errors (whether copula be or lexical verbs separately). Additionally, learners who received corrections on subject-verb agreement errors narrowly defined did not reduce the structure of subject-verb agreement in their subsequent writing. On the other hand, focused feedback was ineffective for the broadly defined subject-verb agreement errors (correcting both copula be and lexical verbs). Nevertheless, learners who perceived the targeted error type of focused feedback on the broadly defined subject-verb agreement errors made more improvements than those who did not. The second experiment conducted to investigate the effects of focused feedback on the lexically-based errors showed that focused feedback was effective when three or four tokens of verb-noun collocation errors were found and corrected. On the other hand, focused feedback was ineffective when one or two tokens of verb-noun collocation errors were found and corrected. However, among learners who produced and were corrected on only one token of a verb-noun collocation error, those who perceived the targeted error type made significantly more improvement in the subsequent writing than those who did not. Taking all the results together, the present dissertation research suggests: (1) Focused feedback is effective when English article and subject-verb agreement errors are narrowly defined, and three or four tokens of verb-noun collocation errors are found and corrected. (2) Learners’ perception of targeted error type is influential in feedback effectiveness when English article and subject-verb agreement errors are broadly defined, and only one token of verb-noun collocation error is found and corrected. (3) Focused feedback does not cause learners’ avoidance of targeted language uses when English article and subject-verb agreement errors are narrowly defined. Implications for the present dissertation research for the written corrective feedback research community and teaching practices are discussed.
關鍵字(中)	★ 糾正回饋 ★ 集中回饋 ★ 外語寫作	關鍵字(英)	★ corrective feedback ★ focused feedback ★ EFL writing
論文目次	CHINESE ABSTRACT i ENGLISH ABSTRACT iii DEDICATION vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ix LIST OF TABLES xv LIST OF FIGURES xx CHAPTER ONE 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation and Significance of the Dissertation 3 1.2 Research Gaps to Be Filled in this Dissertation 7 1.3 Organization of this Dissertation 8 CHAPTER TWO 10 Background and Review of the Literature 10 2.1 The Fundamental Notion of Error Types in this Dissertation 11 2.2 The Notion of Error Types in Previous Written Corrective Feedback Studies 14 2.3 Research Issues in Previous Written Corrective Feedback Studies 17 2.3.1 Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition 18 2.3.2 The Potential Role of Variables in Previous Feedback Studies 19 2.3.2.1 Instructional Setting in Previous Feedback Studies 19 2.3.2.2 Directness of Feedback in Previous Feedback Studies 21 2.3.2.3 Scope of Feedback in Previous Feedback Studies 24 2.3.2.4 The Presence or Absence of Learners’ Revisions in Previous Feedback Studies 27 2.4 A Meta-Analysis on Corrective Feedback Studies 29 2.4.1 Issues Addressed in the Meta-Analysis 29 2.4.2 Why Meta-Analysis and Its Use 32 2.4.3 Selection of Studies to Be Included 34 2.4.4 Profile of Studies Included and Coding 37 2.4.5 Results 41 2.4.6 Discussion 46 2.5 Research Issues to Be Addressed in this Dissertation 50 CHAPTER THREE 53 The Distinction between Rule-Based and Lexically-Based Errors: A Pilot Study 53 3.1 Issues Addressed in the Study 53 3.2 Methodology 55 3.2.1 Participants and Groupings 56 3.2.2 Targeted Linguistics Errors and Corrective Feedback 56 3.2.3 Writing Tasks 59 3.2.4 Procedures 60 3.2.5 Data Analysis 60 3.3 Results and Discussion 62 3.4 Limitations and Scope for Expanded Studies 67 CHAPTER FOUR 69 Effects of Focused Feedback on Rule-Based Errors 69 4.1 Issues Addressed in the Study 69 4.1.1 Defining Focus: The Scope and Targets of Focused Feedback 69 4.1.2 Learners’ Perceptions of Focus 73 4.1.3 Focused Feedback and Learners’ Avoidance of Targeted Linguistic Usages 74 4.2 Methodology 75 4.2.1 Participants 75 4.2.2 Targeted Linguistics Errors and Grouping Principles 76 4.2.3 Corrective Feedback 79 4.2.4 Writing Tasks 80 4.2.5 Open Exit Questions 80 4.2.6 Procedures 81 4.2.7 Data Analysis 83 4.3 Results 86 4.3.1 Defining Error Types Targeted for Corrections in Terms of Focused Feedback Effectiveness 86 4.3.2 Learners’ Perception of Targeted Error Types in Terms of Focused Feedback Effects 93 4.3.3 Learners’ Avoidance of Targeted Linguistics Usages after Corrections 100 4.4 Discussion 104 CHAPTER FIVE 109 Effects of Focused Feedback on Lexically-Based Errors 109 5.1 Issues Addressed in the Study 109 5.1.1 Defining Focus: The Scope and Targets of Focused Feedback 109 5.1.2 Learners’ Perceptions of Focus 112 5.2 Methodology 113 5.2.1 Participants 113 5.2.2 Targeted Linguistics Errors and Grouping Principles 114 5.2.3 Corrective Feedback 116 5.2.4 Writing Tasks 116 5.2.5 Open Exit Questions 116 5.2.6 Procedures 117 5.2.7 Data Analysis 118 5.3 Results 119 5.3.1 Defining Error Types Targeted for Corrections in Terms of Focused Feedback Effects 120 5.3.2 Learners’ Perception of Targeted Error Types in Terms of Focused Feedback Effects 126 5.4 Discussion 131 CHAPTER SIX 134 Conclusion to the Dissertation 134 6.1 Discussion 134 6.2 Pedagogical Implications 140 6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies 142 REFERENCES 143 APPENDIX A: Writing Tasks over the Three Testing Stages 156 APPENDIX B: Exit Questions 159 APPENDIX C: Responses to Exit Questions from Learners Who Perceived the Targeted Error Type (Article or Subject-verb Agreement Errors) 161 APPENDIX D: Responses to Exit Questions from Learners Who Perceived the Targeted Error Type (Verb-noun Collocation Errors) 163 APPENDIX E: Responses to Exit Questions from Learners Who Did Not Perceive the Targeted Error Type 164
參考文獻	(*References marked with asterisks indicate studies included in the analysis.) Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574. Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the Passe Compose and Imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226-243. Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A guide to word combination. Amsterdam/Philadelpha: Benjamins. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: a meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Research Report. Princeton: Educational Testing Service; 2011 Feb. Report No. TOEFL iBT-14. Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MA:Karoma. *Binglan, Z. & Jia, C. (2010). The impact of teacher feedback on the long-term improvement in the accuracy of EFL student writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 18-34. *Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. Bitchener, J. (2012a). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 855-860. Bitchener, J. (2012b). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348-363. Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. UK: Taylor & Francis. *Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 406-431. *Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214. *Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2005). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. Bruton, A. (2009). Designing Research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140. Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491-498. Burt, M.K. & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Carroll, S. (1999). Putting ‘‘input’’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15, 337–388. Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Newbury: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Chander, 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. *Chuang, W.C. (2009). The effects of four different types of corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing in Taiwan. Journal of DYU General Education, 4, 123-138. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL, 4, 161-170. Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). Communicaitve Focus on Form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188. Ellis, R. (2003). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368. *Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371. Faerch, C. & Kasper, S. (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210-238). London: Longman. *Farrokhi, F. & Sattarpour, S. (2011). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1, 1797-1803. *Farrokhi, F. & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high- proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2, 49-57. Fathman, A.K. & 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 (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. *Fazio, L.L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-249. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. Ferris, D. (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 mean time…?), Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-210. Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ferris, D., Liu, H. & Rabie, B. (2011). “The job of teaching writing”: Teacher views of responding to student writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 3, 39-77. 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. Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344. *Frear, D. (2010). “The effect of focused and unfocused direct written corrective feedback on a new piece of writing”. In S.C. Huang (ed.), Selected Papers from the Third Conference on College English (pp. 57-71). Taipei, Taiwan: Foreign Languages Center, National Chengchi University. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53. Han, Z.H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543-572. Harap, H. (1930). The most common grammatical errors. English Journal, 19, 440-446. Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 329-350 Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163. Hendrickson, J.M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398. Higgs, T.V. (1979). Coping with composition. Hispania, 62, 673-678. Hill, J. (1999). Collocational competence? English Teaching Professional, 11, 3-6. Huang, P.Y. (2009). The effects of input on the processing of formulaic sequences in L2. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Tamkang University. Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. London: SAGE Publications. Hyland, K. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217-230. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. New York: Longman. *Karimi, M. & Fotovatnia, Z. (2012). The effects of focused vs. unfocused written teacher correction on the grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL undergraduates. Asian EFL Journal, 62, 42-59. Keeney, T.J. & Wolfe, J. (1972). The acquisition of agreement in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 698-705. *Kepner, C.G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313. Kim, J.H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-24. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge: New York. Laufer, B. & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647-672. Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25, 465-477. Lewis, M. (2000) Language in the Lexical Approach. In. M. Lewis (ed.) Teaching collocation: Further development in the Lexical Approach. London, Language Teaching Publications. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Liu, L.E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Unpublished MA thesis, Tamkang University. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S. & Chen, X. (2009). Second Language Learners’ Beliefs about Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91-104. Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–377). New York: Oxford University Press. Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302. Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press. *Maleki, A. & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3, 1250-1257. Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617-673. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins. *Peloghitis J. (2011). “Form-focused feedback in writing: A study on quality and performance in accuracy”. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT 2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 260-268). JALT: Tokyo. Pica, T. (1983). ‘The article in American English: What the textbooks don’t tell us,’ in Wolfson, Nessa & Judd, Elliot. (ed.) Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 222-233. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language acquisition: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 *Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68. *Rastgou, A. (2012). The impact of form-based and text-specific content-based feedback on writing accuracy and general writing performance of English students in Shahroud. The Iranian EFL Journal, 8, 198-220. Richards, J. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language Teaching Journal, 25, 204-219. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95. *Rouhi, A. & Samiei, M. (2010). The effects of focused and unfocused indirect feedback on accuracy in EFL writing. The Social Sciences, 5, 481-485. *Ruegg, R. (2010a). Interlanguage development: The effect of unfocused feedback on L2 writing. Intercultural Communication Studies, 1, 247-254. *Ruegg, R. (2010b). “Who wants feedback and does it make any difference?”. In A.M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 683-691). Tokyo: JALT. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for the Acquisition of L2 Grammar: A Meta-analysis of the Research. In J.M. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative English teaching in Asian contexts: The challenge for teacher education. Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/ Fourth Pan-Asian Conference, 162-174. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209-232. *Semke, H.D. (1984). Effect of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202. Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to the many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118-133. *Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283. *Sheen, Y., Wright D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569. *Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110. *Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286-306. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus concordance collocation. (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334. Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 1110-1133. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417-431. Tarone, E, & Parrish, B. (1988). Task-related variation in interlanguage: The case of articles. Language learning, 38, 21-44. Tompkins, G. E. (2004). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122. Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27, 225-240. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. Truscott, J. (2010a). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 329-335. Truscott, J. (2010b). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 626-633. *Truscott, J. & Hsu, Y.P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305. *Van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296. * Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41. Wang, W.J. (2005). The effects of degrees of explicitness of automated feedback on English learners’ acquisition of collocations. Unpublished MA thesis, Tamkang University. Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press. Wible, D. (2001). ‘SLA research, second language writing and web-based learning environment’ in Language Research and English Teaching: Challenges and Solutions, 169-180, Taipei: Crane. Wible, Liu & Tsao (2011). A browser-based approach to incidental individualization of vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 530-543. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275. *Yang, S.P. & Kao, C.W. (2012). The differential effects of focused written corrective feedback in a Japanese as a foreign language context: a pilot study. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages, 17, 217-235. Yao, S. S. (2000). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: EFL college learners’ attitudes toward error correction. Unpublished Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo, United States -- New York. Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73-99.
指導教授	衛友賢(David Wible)	審核日期	2015-1-20
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare