| 摘要: | 長久以來，寫作對於母語或非母語人士一直是個挑戰，即便學習多年，語言學習者仍覺得產出令人滿意的作品有一定難度，對於以英語為外語（EFL）的學習者而言更是如此，因此，教師回饋在學生寫作過程中扮演至關重要的角色，是以，研究人員和教育工作者積極尋求創新模式。期能提高學習動機與學習成果。由於科技已被廣泛應用到語言教學中，研究人員於是聚焦於如何善用科技以輔助教師給予學生回饋。過去研究指出非同步書面回饋與同步口頭回饋皆對英語寫作有所助益，但最理想的回饋方式仍有待商榷，而且不同電腦輔助教師回饋設計對學生寫作成果的成效亦意見分歧，再者，前述議題對於非英文系研究生而言更無定論。
為解決前述研究缺口，本研究特別驗證兩種電腦輔助教師回饋設計對學生寫作成果的成效（總成績、總體/技術細節面向），單一教師回饋設計指的是非同步書面回饋，雙重教師回饋設計則包含是非同步書面回饋與同步口語回饋。本研究亦檢視非同步書面回饋與同步口語回饋分別聚焦哪些面向，並深入探討臺灣學生與美國教師對整體教學設計的觀感。
研究對象為北臺灣某國立大學兩班科技英文寫作課程的學生，32位學生皆為非英文系研究生，隨機指派一班（16位學生）為實驗組，接受雙重教師回饋設計，另一班（16位學生）則為控制組，接受單一教師回饋設計。四位美國教師任教於美國中西部某公立大學之英文課程，每位教師皆與八位臺灣學生進行配對（實驗組與控制組各四位），負責給予臺灣學生關於比較文寫作方面的回饋。在本研究寫作課程中，臺灣學生於課前皆須閱讀指定文章、觀看教學影片、回應理解性問題，並於課堂中進行寫作，比較臺灣與美國對於學術剽竊議題的異同。臺灣學生將作文上傳到線上系統後，美國教師即針對所有學生提供非同步書面回饋，學生再據以修改由於實驗組學生接受雙重教師回饋設計，因此除了收到書面回饋外，還要與美國教師進行視訊會議，獲取同步口語回饋。
所收集的資料包含學生比較文作品（初稿、修訂稿、完稿）與反思回饋（美國教師與臺灣學生皆有），研究結果如下：
一、 兩種電腦輔助教師回饋設計皆有效提升學生寫作成果，且雙重教師回饋設計顯著優於單一教師回饋設計。
二、 實驗組學生在總體面向顯著優於控制組學生，這包含開頭/主題論述、主文、結論、文章架構、回應主旨。
三、 非同步書面回饋包含總體與技術細節面向的建議，同步口語回饋則聚焦意見釐清與宏觀建議。
四、 大多數學生認為電腦輔助教師回饋有助於英文寫作。
五、 美國教師對本研究寫作教學設計皆抱持正面態度。
本研究幫助研究者、英文教師、課程設計者更加瞭解電腦輔助教師回饋如何影響非英文系學生的寫作成果，並提出教學規劃及學術研究應用上之討論。
;Writing has long been considered challenging among native and nonnative speakers. Even with years of instruction, language learners, particularly those in English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) contexts, still find it difficult to produce works with satisfying quality. Therefore, teacher feedback has played a vital role in helping student writers to improve during the writing process. With the need for instructional alternatives to English writing that EFL learners long deem challenging, researchers and educators seek instructional innovations that lead to enhanced learning motivation and outcomes. Since technology has been widely integrated into language teaching and learning, researchers have probed into how technology could be optimized to facilitate the provision of teacher feedback and to further enhance student learning. Studies have shown that the positive effects of asynchronous written feedback and synchronous oral feedback on English writing. Nevertheless, the optimal way to respond to student writing has remained undetermined, and the extent to which diverse forms of computer-mediated teacher feedback affected EFL learner’s writing performance has remained inconclusive. Such issue is even more problematic to non-English-majored graduate students.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to address the aforementioned research gap observed in current EFL writing education. Special attention was given to EFL leaners’ writing outcomes (overall performance, global/local aspects of writing) as the result of two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs in a naturalistic setting; that is, the single feedback design consisting of asynchronous teacher written feedback versus the dual feedback design including both asynchronous teacher written feedback and synchronous teacher oral feedback. Focuses of written and oral teacher feedback were also respectively examined. Furthermore, perceptions about the computer-mediated teacher feedback among the Taiwanese students as well as thoughts about the writing instructional design among the American teacher partners were also explored.
The Taiwanese participants were 32 non-English-major graduates from two intact English Writing courses in northern Taiwan. One class was randomly assigned as the experimental group (i.e., receiving dual teacher feedback), while the other was the control group (i.e., having single teacher feedback). A total of four writing teachers from the ESL Program in a public university in the Midwestern region of the United States were invited to give Taiwanese students feedback on their compare and contrast essays. Each American teacher was paired with eight Taiwanese students (four from the experimental group and four from the control group). In the writing instruction, all of the students (1) reviewed learning materials and instructional videos, (2) answered comprehension check questions before physical class meetings, and (3) finished a compare and contrast essay concerning the differences in plagiarism between Taiwan and America. After uploading the essays to the designated platform, all Taiwanese students received written comments from the American teacher partners, with which they revised their papers accordingly. The students in the experimental group were further engaged in interaction with their American teacher partners in teacher-student writing conference and received synchronous oral feedback. Thus, the focus of the study lied in how two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs affected writing outcomes, and how the participants (both Taiwanese students and American teachers) perceived the writing instructional design.
Multiple sources of data were collected to examine the effectiveness of the two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs and to explore perceptions from the Taiwanese students and American teachers. These included the compare and contrast essays (the first draft, second draft, and final draft) and reflective journals. The major findings were as follows:
1. Both computer-mediated teacher feedback designs (i.e., single and dual teacher feedback) significantly enhanced the writing performance of Taiwanese student. The dual teacher feedback deign, compared with the single teacher feedback design, contributed to significantly higher writing performance among students.
2. The students receiving the dual teacher feedback deign outperformed those receiving the single teacher feedback design in the global aspects of writing including introduction/thesis statement, body paragraphs, conclusion, overall organization, and response to the prompt.
3. Asynchronous teacher written feedback covered both global and local aspects of writing, while synchronous teacher oral feedback in writing conferences focused more on meaning clarification and macro-level suggestions.
4. Most of the Taiwanese students found the computer-mediated teacher feedback to be a beneficial resource for English writing.
5. The American teachers were positive about the overall writing instructional design.
Successful implementation of this study provides researchers, English instructors, and curriculum designers with a better understanding of how computer-mediated teacher feedback affected non-English-major learners’ writing performance. Furthermore, the potential effects of the writing instruction identified by this study provide directions for future practice, and pave the way for further research and for integration of innovative instructional designs in an EFL setting. |
