中文摘要

本研究旨在探討兩種錯誤批改方式對九十位高中女學生的寫作表現及其態度之影響。 在四個月的實驗期間，每一位參與的學生共寫了四個題目，每個題目兩篇草稿。第一個題目的第一篇草稿作為前測，而第四個題目的第一篇草稿作為後測。 對於四十五位直接批改組學生的文章，老師直接批改其錯誤並提供正確答案。至於其他四十五位代碼批改組的學生，老師則以代碼指出他們文章中錯誤的地方及其類別。所有參與學生都要依據老師的提示或修改，將每篇文章的第一篇草稿加以修正。學生作文品質進步與否係依據大學入學考試作文評閱標準來評定，而其寫作正確性是否增加，則由每篇文章的犯錯率來決定。此外，在實驗結束時，學生對於兩種錯誤批改方式的態度亦反應於他們所填寫的態度問卷中。
研究的結果顯示，在改進學生寫作品質及增進其文法準確性方面，兩種批改方法同樣有效。但是這兩種方式對於不同寫作程度的學生之影響並不相同。雖然對於低程度的學生而言，這兩種批改方式的影響並無顯著不同，但是對於高程度的學生來說，代碼批改組不論在文章品質或文法準確性上均優於直接批改組。因此，代碼批改方式對於高程度學生成效較顯著。再者，不同程度的學生對於兩種批改方式的態度亦不相同。高程度學生，對於代碼批改，相較於直接批改的方式，抱持較正面的態度。而低程度的同學則喜歡直接批改方式勝於代碼批改方式。
基於研究的結果，提供下列建議供高中寫作教師參考。首先，此二種有效可行的批改方式皆可應用於實際教學中。然而在實行當中，老師仍須瞭解此二種批改方式對於不同程度學生的影響並不相同，對於高程度學生，建議使用代碼批改方式；至於低程度的學生，直接批改可能更適合他們。

Abstract

This empirical pre-post study aimed to investigate the effects of two error correction methods on the writing performance of 90 senior high school EFL female students and their attitudes toward the treatments. During the four months of the experiment, the 90 participants were asked to write on four topics, and for each topic two drafts were written. The first draft on the first topic served as the pretest while the first draft on the last topic, the posttest. For the first draft on each topic, the 45 students in the direct group received direct error correction from their teacher; whereas the remaining 45 students in the code group received code error correction with the types of their errors identified by their teacher. All the participants revised their first draft based on their teacher’s correction or error codes. The writing quality of the pre-and post-tests was measured by the CEEC rating scale while the writing accuracy was measured by the ratio of the number of errors to the total number of words written in each single draft. Besides, students’ attitudes toward the implemented treatments were also measured by an attitude questionnaire administered at the end of the treatments.
The findings revealed that the two correction methods were equally effective in improving students’ writing quality and accuracy, but their effects differed on students of different writing proficiency. Although no significant difference was found between the two treatment groups at lower proficiency level, higher-proficiency students from the code group outperformed those from the direct group in terms of their improvement in either writing quality or accuracy, indicating students of higher proficiency benefited more form code correction method.
Also revealed in the finding were the students’ attitudes toward the two correction methods. The difference in students’ attitude mainly existed between students of different proficiency levels. Students of higher proficiency held more positive attitudes toward code error correction than direct error correction, while students of lower proficiency preferred direct error correction to code error correction.
Based on the results, some suggestions are made for writing teaches’ reference. First, high school writing teachers can consider incorporating both correction methods in their teaching since they are verified to be effective and feasible. Nevertheless, when practicing the two correction methods, writing teachers have to take into consideration students’ writing proficiency. For students of higher proficiency, writing teachers are recommended to use code error correction which better tailors to the needs of those students. As for students of lower proficiency, direct error correction can be a better choice because it reduces their frustration which in turn encourages them to continue writing.

References

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(3), 227-257.
Bitcher, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 14, 227-257.
Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9,
53-63.
Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning variations in
written feedback on home work assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 251-61
Chandler, 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
Chang, C. J. (1999). A case study of the effect of error correction on the grammatical
structures of three Chinese university students’ EFL writing. Master thesis,
National Tshing Hua University.
Chen, D. W. (1997). The state of college EFL composition instruction—A survey of
college EFL composition instructors’ professional background and views. In
Dept. of English, National Taiwan Normal University (Ed.), Proceedings of the
fourth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China.
Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Company.
Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The
Modern Language Journal, 59 (8), 414-422
Cohen, A.D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance:
The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’
explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45-66.
Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (4th edition). UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Eskey, D. E. (1983). Meanwhile, back in the real world…: Accuracy and fluency in
second language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 17:315-23.
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.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response
to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision.
TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. & Hedgecock, J. S. (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose,
Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on
student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 6(2), 155-182.
Ferris, D., and 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. (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 meantime?).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational
Research, 57, 481-506.
Field, A. F. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London: SAGE
Publications.
Frodesen, J. & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), In Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141-161).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heaton, J. B. (2005). Beginning composition through pictures. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane
Publishing Company.
Heaton, J. B. (2005). Composition through pictures Taiwan: Crane Publishing
Company.
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.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent
theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8).
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language
Journal, 64(2), 387-398
Hendrickson, J. M. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching.
Singpore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision
in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16,
261-278. (1986).

Horowitz, D. (1886). Process not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly
20, 141-44.
Huang, T. L. (1988). Performance Analysis and Teaching EFL Composition –A
General Teaching Model. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Company.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written
feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern
Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
Kerr, A., Hall, H., Kozub, S. (2002). Doing statistics with SPSS. London: Sage
Publications.
Knobauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing:
The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4.
Kubota, M. (2001). Error correction strategies used by learners of Japanese when
revising a writing task. System, 29, 467-480.
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An Experiment. Modern
Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (1990). French immersion research agenda for the 90s.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, 638-69.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some
implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding
error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong
Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. (pp.57-68) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in
college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24, 203-218.
Mantello, M. (1997). Error correction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 54, 127-131.
Perl, S. (1980). Understanding Composing. College Composition and
Communication, 31, 363-369.
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.
Radecki, P . M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments
on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.

Richard, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1998). Longman dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Hong Kong: Addison Wesley Longman China
Limited.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its
effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1998). Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Hong Kong: Addison Wesley Longman China
Limited.
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and
teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language
Annuals, 29(3), 343-364.
Semke, D., and College, W. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17, 195-202.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal,
23(1), 103-111.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and
directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Second language writing: Research insight
for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press.
Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly,
15(1), 5-13
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 against grammar correction in L2
writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2),
111-122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to
Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zydatis, W. (1974). A Kiss of Life for the Notion of Error. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teachings, 12(3), 231-237.