臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：以英文為外語之大學生在協同修改作文過程中針對英文老師的書面修正性回饋之投入情形：以認知、情意及行為三面向探究
作者：邱宜敏
作者(外文)：Chiu, Yi-Min
校院名稱：國立成功大學
系所名稱：外國語文學系
指導教授：閔慧慈
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2023
主題關鍵詞：修正性回饋；共同投入；英語為外語初階學習者；Written corrective feedback；Collaborative engagement；Novice EFL learners
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
關於第二外語學習者針對教師書面修正性回饋之投入情形的議題在近幾年受到第二外語寫作以及第二外語習得兩個領域研究者的關注。部份研究者將研究重點放在英文為第二語言/外語學生在雙人寫作後共同處理教師提供之書面修正性回饋。其他研究者則是從認知、情意以及行為三個面向探討英文為外語學生針對個人作文上書面修正性回饋之投入情形。然而，兩個研究主軸中，尚缺以三個面向探究英語為外語的初階學習者於雙人寫作後共同針對渠等作文上書面修正性回饋之投入情形的相關研究。本研究以此為出發點進行深入探討。
具體而言，本研究旨在探究英語為外語的初階學習者在雙人寫作後共同針對教師給予雙人作文上書面修正性回饋投入的情況下，在認知、情意以及行為等三個面向的個人或雙方互惠受益情形。本研究採用個案研究方法蒐集多項資料，包括學生問卷作答、雙人作文初稿、教師書面修正性回饋、學生個人口頭錄音報告、雙人對話錄音以及個別訪談錄音。研究對象來自作者2018年第一學期開設之共同學術英文課程，一共6組12位大學部新生，皆為英語為外語的初階學習者。資料分析重點有二：第一，在資料中找出例子，以瞭解各組學生在認知(即注意、理解、解決方法)、情意(立即情緒反應以及整體態度) 以及行為 (正確與不正確使用；忽略) 三個面向上個人或雙方投入情況。第二，影響個人或雙方投入情況的個人因素或情境因素。
本研究的主要結果如下。首先，結果顯示兩人共同投入書面修正性回饋有助於每組學生在認知、情意或行為三個面向上的雙方投入情況。在各組中，兩位同學雙雙在認知上更加深入 (如:由忽略提升到注意)、在情意上能有正向的社會情緒互動，以及在行為上齊力修改作文上的錯誤。其次，結果也顯示，兩人共同投入對每組同學的個人投入情形，皆有正向的幫助，只是反映在不同的面向上。各組中英文程度較弱的同學在認知上更進一步 (如:由注意提升到理解)，而程度較好的同學則是在情意上克服了一開始的負面情緒反應。最後，每組同學在個人或雙方投入情形，可能因為授課老師採用的修正性回饋技巧/種類與方法的因素，受到影響。各組學生在第一眼看到雙人作文上密密麻麻的紅字時，通常會將其誤認為自己文法錯誤的數量，從而在個人投入的情意上出現負面的情緒反應。至於雙方投入情形，若老師以間接回饋或間接附加解釋回饋來改正雙人作文中的錯誤用字或句型，各組學生除了在認知上無法完全理解回饋或提供解決方法外，在行為上也無法正確修改錯誤。
依據結果，作者提出教學上的建議並指出本研究不足之處。在教學上，英文作文或語言教師應採取選擇性方法，針對學生作文上特定語言錯誤類別 (如:片斷句型) 提供修正性回饋。至於不足之處，由於作者以教師即研究者的身份出現在資料收集的過程中，部份學生參與者似乎受到影響因而在作答時較為簡要與有所保留。
The issue regarding second language (L2) learners' responses to the teacher's written corrective feedback (WCF) has attracted interest from both L2 writing and second language acquisition researchers recently. Some researchers focused on English as a Second Language (ESL)/English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students' collaboration in pairs to cognitively process WCF together whereas other researchers probed individual EFL learners' engagement with the teacher's error feedback from a multi-dimensional—cognitive, affective, and behavioral—perspective. Absent in both lines of research, however, are studies on novice EFL pairs' collaborative engagement with error feedback. This gap serves as a starting point for the present study.
Specifically, this study aimed to explore if and to what extent novice EFL learners could benefit cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally at the individual or pair level from collaborating with each other during the revision process in which they responded to the teacher's error feedback on their jointly composed drafts. This study adopted a case study research approach to collect data from multiple sources, including questionnaire responses, student texts, the teacher researcher's WCF, individual audio reports, recorded pair dialogues, and interview transcripts. Participants were six pairs of novice EFL university freshmen enrolled in the teacher-researcher's general academic English class in the fall semester of 2018. Data analysis focused on 1) identifying instances that demonstrated each student pair's individual or mutual engagement with WCF at cognitive (noticing, understanding, or resolving), affective (immediate reactions and overall attitudes), and behavioral (using WCF accurately or inaccurately; ignoring) levels, and 2) individual and contextual factors for each individual/pair's engagement with the teacher researcher's error feedback.
The major results of this study were threefold. First, collaborative engagement with the teacher researcher's WCF was found beneficial at the pair level considering each pair's mutual cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement. In each pair, both students became cognitively more engaged (e.g., from ignoring level to noticing level), affectively had positive socio-emotional interactions, and behaviorally corrected together errors marked via direct feedback. Second, collaboratively responding to the teacher researcher's error feedback was found to benefit individual students in different dimensions. The less competent student in each pair became more engaged cognitively with the help from his/her more competent partner. The more competent student in each pair, in contrast, overcame initial negative emotions after interacting positively with his/her partner at socio-emotional levels. Finally, one possible factor identified to contribute to a pair's individual or mutual engagement with WCF was the teacher researcher's error feedback strategies/types and approaches. That is, students in each pair tended to react negatively at the individual level to a great amount of red ink on their joint text as they usually equated it with the number of errors. The teacher researcher's use of indirect feedback or indirect plus metalinguistic feedback to mark word-level or sentence-level grammatical errors could deter a pair from mutually understanding and/or resolving and accurately correcting the errors.
Based on the results, some pedagogical implications and limitations of this study are elucidated. For pedagogical implications, English writing or language teacher should adopt a selective WCF approach to address specific linguistic error types (e.g., fragments) on students' drafts. Regarding limitations, the teacher researcher's on-site presence seemed to lead to some students' short and reserved responses during data collection procedures.
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence climate on conflict and team members' reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39(2), 121-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407304921
Bakhtiar, A., Webster, E. A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2018). Regulation and socio-emotional interactions in a positive and a negative group climate. Metacognition and Learning, 13(1), 57-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9178-x
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Buckley, A. (2017). The ideology of student engagement research. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(6), 718-732. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1414789
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). London: Ablex Publishing.
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (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). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter?”In A. L. Christenson, S. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-132). New York: Springer.
Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 185-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual factors. System, 80, 288-303.
Han, Y., & Gao, S. (2021). Research on learner engagement with written (corrective) feedback: Insights and issue. In P. Hiver, A. H. Al-Hoorie, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 56-74). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019a). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019b). Learner engagement with written feedback: A sociocognitive perspective. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 247-264). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547
Hanjani, A. M. (2015). Collaborative revision in L2 writing: Learners’ reflections. ELT Journal, 70(3), 296-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv053
Hyland, F. (2011). The language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing: Students' and teachers' perceptions. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 159-180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jarvenoja, H., Naykki, P., & Tormanen, T. (2019). Emotional regulation in collaborative learning: When do higher education students activate group level regulation in the face of challenges? Studies in Higher Education, 44(10), 1747-1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665318
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 758-773.
Kassim, A., Luan, N. L. (2014). The roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing written corrective feedback efficacy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 10, 16-30.
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25, 234-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and L2 learning: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 335-354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York and Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000390
Lee, I. (2019). Written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524-563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000247
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Leow, R. P., & Suh, B-R. (2022). Theoretical perspectives on writing, corrective feedback, and language learning in individual writing conditions. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (1st ed., pp. 9-21). New York, NY: Routledge.
Li, C., Jiang, G., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Understanding Chinese high school students’ foreign language enjoyment: Validation of the Chinese version of the foreign language enjoyment scale. System, 76, 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.06.004
Li, S., &Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system. 2019.05.006
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2012.2.2.4
Manty, K., Jarvenoja, H., & Tormanen, T. (2020). Socio-emotional interaction in collaborative learning: Combining individual emotional experiences and group-level emotion. International Journal of Education Research, 102, 101589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101589
Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2022). Researching L2 student engagement with written feedback: Insights from sociocultural theory. TESOL Quarterly, 56(2), 788-798.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2002). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Naykki, P., Jarvela, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Jarvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—a process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.07.001
Niu, R., Jiang, L., & Deng, Y. (2018). Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners' language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(3), https://doi.org/187-195.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0377-2
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions. An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz, R. Pekrun, & G. Phye (Eds.). Emotion in education (pp. 13-36). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4
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, 277-303.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 67-100.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. In J. H. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in second language. AILA 11. (pp. 11-26).
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034
Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320
Storch, N. (2022). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing and language in collaborative writing and the collaborative processing of written corrective feedback. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (1st ed., pp. 22-34). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-4
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C.Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue: In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 495-508). New York, NY: Routledge.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46, 195-207.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996. tb01238.x.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1), Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum Press.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Butler, P. (2010). Engagement in post-compulsory education: Students’ motivation and action. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596740903565269
Zhang, A., Liu, T., & Lee, C. B. (2021). Language learners' enjoyment and emotion regulation in online collaborative learning. System, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102478
Zhang, Z. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71, 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw089
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Liu, A. (2020). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency students' engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1806225
Zschocke, K., Wosnitza, M., & Burger, K. (2015). Emotions in group work: Insights from an appraisal-oriented perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 359-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0278-1
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：949（臺灣：938，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67787116
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上