在台灣，已經有英文作文教師採取用錄音帶的方式給予學生回饋，來幫助他們修 正文章。然而，幾乎沒有人研究過這種方法對中國學生的效果。因此這個研究要藉著比較用 錄音帶回饋及用傳統的紙筆回饋的不同，來探討前者的效果。探討的議題如下：（一）老師 用錄音帶及紙筆兩種合併使用的方式，與只用紙筆的方式，在回饋的量上，孰者為優？（二 ）用錄音帶及紙筆合併使用的方式，與只用紙筆的方式，這兩種所產生的回饋，在本質上有 何不同？另外，單用錄音帶與單用紙筆，這兩種方式的回饋，在本質上有何不同？本研究的 對象作者自己及她在東海大學所教的大二作文班的一位學生。研究資料為研究者對該學生的第四及第五篇文章所給的回饋。第四篇文章，是用錄音帶與紙筆合併方式回饋，而第五篇是單用紙筆，研究者對每篇文章所費的回饋時間都記錄下來。 研究發現如下：（一）不管是用錄音帶及紙筆兩種合併的方式回饋，與只用紙筆的方式 回饋比較，或單用錄音帶回饋，與單用紙筆回饋比較，在回饋的量上，前者皆比後者為優。 （二）當用錄音帶及紙筆兩種合併的方式回饋，與只用紙筆的方式回饋比較時，老師回饋時 所看的文章的層面沒有太大的不同。（三）當老師使用紙筆回饋時，比較傾向於處理語言錯 誤的問題，而當使用錄音帶回饋時，則比較傾向於處理各類的問題。（四）當老師使用錄音 帶回饋時，討論問題比使用紙筆回饋時要詳盡。（五）當老師使用錄音帶回饋時，所使用的 技巧，與使用紙筆回饋時的不同。同時前者比後者更能鼓勵學生自己去思考如何修改文章。 本研究結果顯示在回饋時使用錄音帶效較佳。

　　　　　Some university EFL composition teachers in Taiwan have experimented with audiotaping their commentary on students' writing to help students revise. However, there has been very little research on how effective this method is for Chinese studedts. Therefore, a study was designed to shed light on this issue by comparing audiotaped feedback (ATF) with traditional written feedback (WF). In this study, the researcher focused on the ATF and WF provided by the researcher herself for one of her students in a sophomore composition class at Tunghai University. The feedback frovided for this student's fourth and fifth writing assignments was analyzed. The feedback for the former was provided by suing a combined method, i.e., both ATF and WF, while the feedback for the latter was provided by suing WF only. The research questions were: (1) How effective is the combined method as compared with the WF only method in terms of the quantity of beedback？ In addition, how effective is ATF as compared with WF in terms of the quantity of feedback？ (2) What are the differences in the nature of the feedback provided through the combined method and the WF only method, if any？ In addition, what are the differences in the nature of the feedback provided through ATF and WF, if any？ The major findings were as follows: (1) Both the combined method and ATF were much more effective than the WF only method in terms of the quantity of feedback. (2) There did not seem to be much difference between the combined method and the WF onlymethod in the aspects of the writing addressed. (3) When the combined method was adopted, the teacher seemed to save WF mostly for addressing language errors and ATF for addressing both language errors and other problems concerning content, structure, organization, coherence, logic, clarity, tone, and style. (4) ATF encouraged the teacher to discuss writing problems more thoroughly than WF. (5)The teacher demonstrated different responding strategies in her ATF and WF , and the former appeared to encourage the student to do her own problem solving better. Findings from this study argued strongly for the use of ATF over WF.