An Exploration of Teachers' Corrective Intention and College Students' Interpretation of Oral Corrective Feedback

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	吳佩樺 Wu, Mia Pei-Hua
論文名稱：	An Exploration of Teachers' Corrective Intention and College Students' Interpretation of Oral Corrective Feedback 教師糾錯意圖與大學生對口語糾錯回饋解釋之探索
指導教授：	柯安娜
口試委員:	柯安娜卓江
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2011
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	83
中文關鍵詞：	糾錯回饋
外文關鍵詞：	corrective feedback
相關次數：	點閱：37 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

在過去數十年間許多研究者花了大量精力研究糾錯回饋。然而，很少研究檢視老師糾錯意圖與學生解釋的重疊部分。因此，本研究旨在探討(1)在教室的情境中，老師有意糾正學生錯誤的程度；(2)老師糾錯意圖與學生解釋的重疊部分；(3)學生對糾正性回饋的意見及看法。
本研究觀察與記錄兩個班級五個禮拜，研究對象包括兩位大一英文老師及其51位學生。在觀查期間，研究者從兩班課堂錄影中挑選20段回饋給予事件。這些事件幾乎平均分配至學生的三種錯誤類型(語音、文法、用字)，也包含了老師不同的糾錯回饋類型。在每堂課結束一個禮拜內，研究者訪問並記錄授課老師給予每個回饋的意圖。研究者將20段回饋給予事件及10段干擾項組合成一段新的影片剪輯。所有的學生必須同時看此剪輯與填寫問卷。問卷首先要求學生判斷影片裡學生話語的正確性及錯誤類別，接著學生必須判斷老師給予某段話語的用意。問卷提供五項固定的敘述讓學生解釋老師的用意。問卷填寫結束後，研究者訪問16名參與學生。這些學生因為他們常得到或從未得到老師的糾錯回饋而被挑選為受訪者。研究者詢問受訪者對於老師糾錯回饋的意見及看法。
研究結果顯示，老師在給予學生的語音、句法、用字錯誤回饋時有糾錯意圖。兩位老師都顯露不同程度的糾錯意圖且有時一個回饋囊括多重意圖。然而，可能只有當老師糾正語音錯誤時學生才能成功解釋其意圖。其他老師的回饋多半被視為無糾正性質。因此，本研究建議，若老師選擇糾正學生的口語錯誤，可以將焦點放在語音錯誤而非其它錯誤類型。此外，老師在糾正學生非語音錯誤時必須結合不同的提示與方法。否則，學生改善錯誤的機會就會減低許多，因為他們甚至沒有注意到老師的糾正。

Researchers have put forth a lot of effort in the field of oral corrective feedback for the past several decades. However, few studies have looked at the overlap of teachers’ corrective intentions and students’ interpretations. Thus, the purposes of the present study are to find out (1) the extent teachers make deliberate efforts to correct students’ errors in classroom settings; (2) the overlap of teachers’ corrective intentions and students’ interpretations ; and (3) students’ opinions and feelings about oral corrective feedback.
In the present study, two freshman classes were observed and recorded for five weeks. There were totally two teachers and 51 students participating in this study. During the observation period, 20 feedback-giving events were selected from the video recordings of the two classes. The 20 events were almost equally distributed to students’ three oral error types, namely, phonological, grammatical, and lexical errors and with various teachers’ corrective feedback types contained. The two teachers were asked to recall their intentions to every corrective feedback event individually no more than one week after they finished each class. The 20 feedback-giving events along with 10 distractors were later combined to form a new video clip. All student participants had to watch the video and fill in a questionnaire at the same time. The questionnaire first asked students to judge the correctness and error type of student utterances in the video clip. Then, students had to interpret the intention of teachers’ utterances. The questionnaire provided five fixed interpretations for students to interpret the teachers’ intentions. After finishing the questionnaire, the researcher interviewed 16 of the student participants. These selected students were those who received the teachers’ most corrective feedback or those who had never been corrected by the teachers. The interviewees were invited to share their opinions and feelings about the teachers’ corrective feedback.
The results show that the teachers had corrective intentions when giving responses to students’ phonological, grammatical, and lexical errors. Both teachers revealed different amounts of corrective intentions and sometimes they had more than one intention when correcting students. However, results seemed to indicate that students could successfully interpret teachers’ intentions only when the correction was focused on phonological errors. Most of teachers’ other corrective feedback was regarded as non-corrective. Therefore, it is suggested that teachers may focus more on phonological errors than other errors if they choose to correct students’ errors. Also, when correcting students’ errors, teachers need integrate more hints and strategies, especially when the errors are non-phonological. Otherwise, the possibility of students’ correcting their errors will be very limited since students do not even notice the correction.

摘要    i
Abstract    ii
Acknowledgements    iv
Chapter 1 Introduction    1
Chapter 2 Literature Review    3
2.1 Error correction    3
2.2 Oral corrective feedback    4
2.3 The controversial value of recasts    7
2.4 Classroom interaction and noticing    10
2.5 Doubts about the value of corrective feedback    12
2.6 Perceptions, subjective beliefs and opinions    13
Chapter 3 Methodology    17
3.1 Participants    17
3.2 Data collection and procedures    19
3.2.1 Selection of teachers and classes    20
3.2.2 Classroom observation    21
3.2.3 The compilation of Interaction Clip    21
3.2.4 Stimulated recall    23
3.2.5 The collection of students’ subjective opinions    24
3.2.6 Student interview    25
3.2.7 Analytical procedures    26
3.3 Instruments    27
3.3.1 Demographic questionnaire    27
3.3.2 Subjective Opinion Questionnaire    27
3.3.3 Interaction Clip    27
Chapter 4 Results    29
4.1 Demographic information    29
4.2 The Content of Interaction Clip    30
4.3 Teachers’ intentions with regard to the 30 events    32
4.4 Students’ interpretations of the 30 events    33
4.5 Teacher interviews    41
4.6 Student interviews    46
4.7 A brief summary    52
Chapter 5 Discussion     53
5.1 The extend of teachers’ deliberate efforts    53
5.2 The overlap of teachers’ intentions and students’ interpretation     57
5.3 Students’ feelings about teachers’ correction    60
5.4 Additional findings     63
5.4.1 Determinants that decides the success or failure of corrective feedback    63
5.4.2 Considerations when giving corrective feedback    64
5.4.3 Ways to improve one’s oral errors    65
Chapter 6 Conclusion    67
6.1 Implications of the overlap    67
6.1.1 The overwhelming positive attitude toward corrective feedback    68
6.1.2 Pedagogical Implication    69
6.2 Limitations and future research    69
References    71
Appendices    73
Appendix A Questionnaire for Selecting Teachers    73
Appendix B Demographic Questionnaire    74
Appendix C Students’ Midterm Exam Score    76
Appendix D Subjective Opinion Questionnaire    77
Appendix E Transcription of the 30 Events    78

                                

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.
Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’
interpretations of recasts. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209-236.
Chen, C. C. (1979) An error analysis of English compositions written by Chinese students in Taiwan. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001) Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ Versus Teachers’ Perception. Language Awareness, 14, 112-127.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom:
Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal,
90, 536-556.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 268-300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies of
Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405-430.
Mackey, A., Al-Khalil, M., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., & Logan-Terry, A. (2007) Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 129-152.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language
Journal, 82, 338-356.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.
Nikolov, M., & Krashen, S. (1997). Need we sacrifice accuracy for fluency? System, 25, 197-201.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult
ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
Seedhouse, P. (1997a). Combining form and meaning. ELT journal, 51, 336-344.
Seedhouse, P. (1997b). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547-583.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835-874.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In M. S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 55, 437-456.
Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27, 225-240.
Truscott, J. (2005). The continuing problems of oral grammar correction. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 17-22.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the
development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78-93.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文