Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58309| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 許炳煌 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Sheu, Ping Huang | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | 許淑芬 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsu, Shu Fen | en_US |
| dc.creator | 許淑芬 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | Hsu, Shu Fen | en_US |
| dc.date | 2012 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2013-06-03T09:23:18Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2013-06-03T09:23:18Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2013-06-03T09:23:18Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0098951020 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58309 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 英語教學碩士在職專班 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 98951020 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 101 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究在探討兩種不同教師回饋對新竹縣國小六年級學童英文句型寫作之影響以及此兩種回饋對學生英語學習態度與動機的影響。此研究以來自新竹縣某國小六年級兩個班級學生為研究對象，此二班級隨機指派為實驗組及控制組。實驗組實施習作批改時的間接回饋而對照組則實施傳統直接回饋，每週均批改一次習作。經過14週的回饋後，兩組皆進行英文句型寫作測驗並施以英語學習態度與動機問卷;3週後再進行英文句型寫作延宕測驗。研究結果顯示，學生受過教師的間接回饋批改後在英文句型寫作之正確率上有顯著進步，此顯著進步也表現在延宕測驗中的介系詞題型；但其對訂正習作上錯誤則表現顯著焦慮。希望本研究能為英語老師在教學實務上提供助益。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The present study mainly aimed at investigating the effects of two different types of teacher feedback on English sentence writing accuracy. Meanwhile this paper also aimed at examining learners’ attitudes of the two different types of teacher feedback, and the changes of learners’ attitudes and motivation towards English learning after the implementation of different teacher feedbacks.\n Two sixth-grade classes in Hsin Chu County were randomly assigned to be the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group received indirect feedback (IDF) on their workbook while the control group received traditional direct feedback (DF) once a week. After the 14-week treatment, an English writing proficiency test and an English learning attitudes and motivation questionnaire were administrated to examine learners’ sentence writing accuracy and their learning attitudes and motivations respectively. Finally, a retention test was conducted in 3 weeks later to know the retention effect of two types of teacher feedback.\n The findings showed that the IDF had helped students gained significant progress on sentence writing accuracy. Moreover, the significant improvement was also presented on the aspect of preposition in the retention test. However, the IDF group expressed significant anxiety towards correcting errors on workbooks after the treatment of IDF. Hopefully, the findings of the present study may provide English teachers with some useful pedagogical implications. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of Contents\nDedication Page………………………………………………………………………iii\nAcknowledgments………………………………………………………iv\nTable of Contents……………………………………………………v\nList of Tables…………………………………………………………viii\nList of Figures………………………………………………………ix\nChinese Abstract………………………………………………………x\nEnglish Abstract………………………………………………………xi\nChapter One: Introduction……………………………………………………………1\n Background and Motivation…………………………………1\n Purpose of the Study…………………………………………5\n Research Questions……………………………………………7\n Definition of Terms…………………………………………8\nSignificance of the Study………………………………………10\nChapter Two: Literature Review………………………………13\n The Concept of Writing……………………………………13\nWriting Models………………………………………………………15\nWriting Pedagogy in Taiwan………………………………………20\nGrammatical Errors and Corrections …………………………22\nCommon Grammatical Errors in EFL Writing ………………23\nDifferent Correction Ways of Grammatical Errors………26\nTeacher feedback ……………………………………………………29\nThe Concept of Teacher feedback………………………………29\nThe Error-oriented Feedbacks……………………………………30\nThe Content-oriented Feedbacks…………………………………32\nThe Combination of Two Feedback Types………………………33\nDifferent Teacher Feedback Formats……………………………35\n Related Studies on Teacher Feedback……………………38\nStudies in ESL Context………………………………………………39\n Studies in EFL Context……………………………………43\n Studies Related to Students’ Attitudes…………47\n Chapter Summary…………………………………………………49\nChapter Three: Methodology………………………………………51\nParticipants……………………………………………………………51\nInstrument………………………………………………………………52\nEnglish Writing Proficiency Test (EWPT) …………………52\nEnglish Learning Attitudes Questionnaire (ELAQ) ………57\n Procedures…………………………………………………………60\nTreatment……………………………………………………………………65\nFive Targeted Errors……………………………………………………65\nTwo Types of Teacher Feedback………………………………………66\nData Analysis………………………………………………………………68\nChapter Four: Results……………………………………………………69\nThe Effect of Indirect Teacher Feedback(IDF)…………………69\nThe Effect of Direct Teacher Feedback(DF)………………………73\nThe Comparison on Post- and Retention Test of IDF and DF Groups……………………………………………………………………………76\nThe Comparison of the Student Attitudes toward Two Feedback Types………………………………………………………………………………77\nChapter Five: Discussion…………………………………………………87\nResearch Question1: Did the DF group perform better in the post-EWPT than in the pre-EWPT? In addition, did the group perform better in the retention EWPT than \nin the post-EWPT? If yes, in what ways?…………………………87\nResearch Question2: Did the DF group perform better in the post-EWPT than in \nthe pre-EWPT? In addition, did the group perform better in the retention EWPT than in the post-EWPT? If yes, in what ways? ……………………………………………………………………………90\nResearch Question3: Did the IDF group and the DF group perform differently in the post EWPT? Besides, did the two groups perform differently in the retention EWPT? If yes, in what ways?………………………………………………………………91\nResearch Question4: Did the IDF group and the DF group express different \nattitudes toward the treatment? If yes, in what ways?……………………………………………………………………………………92\nChapter Six: Conclusions……………………………………………………………………97\nMain Findings…………………………………………………………………97\nPedagogical Implications……………………………………………………………………97\nLimitation and Suggestions………………………………………………99\nReferences……………………………………………………………………102\nAppendixes……………………………………………………………………112\n Appendix A: English Writing Proficiency Test……………113\n Appendix B: English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire (Chinese Version)…………………………………………………………115\n Appendix C: English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire (English Version)…………………………………………………………117\n Appendix D: Suggestions for English Writing Proficiency Test………………………………………………………………………………119\n Appendix E: Suggestions for English Learning Attitudes Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………120\n Appendix F: Essay Correction Code (ECC)……………………121\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nList of Tables\nTable 1 Sample Questions of EWPT…………….………….…...……………...…….55\nTable 2 A Correction Guide.…………………………..……………………………...62\nTable 3 Paired T-Test on Pre- and Post-EWPT of IDF Group………….……......…...70\nTable 4 Paired T-Test of Each Error Type on Pre- and Post-EWPT of IDF Group.......71\nTable 5 Paired T-Test on Post- and Retention EWPT of IDF Group……………...…..72\nTable 6 Paired T-Test of Each Error Type on Post- and Retention EWPT of IDF \nGroup………………………………………………………………………….73\nTable 7 Paired T-Test on Pre- and Post-EWPT of DF Group…………………............74\nTable 8 Paired T-Test on Post- and Retention EWPT of DF Group………….…….....74\nTable 9 Independent Sample T-Test on Post- Tests of IDF and DF groups……...…...76\nTable 10 Independent Sample T-Test on Retention Tests of IDF and DF Groups…....77\nTable 11 Independent Sample T-Test on Main Section of IDF and DF Groups…....…78\nTable 12 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 1 of ELAQ of IDF and DF\n Groups…………………………………………………………..………..….79\nTable 13 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 2 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups..80\nTable 14 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 3 and 4 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups……………………………………………………………………….82\nTable 15 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 5 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups..83\nTable 16 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 6 of ELAQ of IDF and DF Groups..84\nTable 17 Independent Sample T-Test on Section 7 of ELAQ of IDF and DF \nGroups...............................................................................................................85\n\n\n\n\nList of Figures\nFigure 1 Flow Chart of the Study…………………………….……………..…….…..60\nFigure 2 Revising Procedure of the Unsuccessful Revision………..……………...….62\nFigure 3 A Sample of IDF………………………………...………..….………………67\nFigure 4 A Sample of DF………………………………….……….……...….……….67 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 1357846 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098951020 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 句型寫作 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Sentence Writing | en_US |
| dc.title | 教師回饋對新竹縣國小六年級學童英文句型寫作影響之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | An investigation into the effects of teacher feedback on English sentence writing of grade six elementary school students in Hsin Chu county | en_US |
| dc.type | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference | Abedi, R., Latifi, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2010). The effect of error correction vs. error \ndetection on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ writing achievement. English \nLanguage Teaching, 3(4), 168-174.\nAnderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Freeman.\nAshwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft \ncomposition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best \nmethod? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.\nAusubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive \nview (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.\nBadger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.\nBitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3),191-205. \nBrown, H. (2000). Teaching by principles. New York, NY: Pearson Education \nIncorporation.\nBurstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The \n criterion online writing service. Association for the Advancement of Artificial \nIntelligence, 25(3), 27-36. \nCamhi, P. J. (2001). A pedagogic rationale for grammar instruction. Idiom, 30(1), 3-4.\nCamhi, P. J. (2004). Getting it right: An editing text for ESL/EFL students (2nd ed.). \nDubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Co.\nCamhi, P. J., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2008). Merging a metalinguistic grammar approach \nwith L2 academic process writing: ELLs in community college. Teaching \nEnglish as a Second or Foreign Language, 12(2), 1-25.\nCarreira, M. J. (2006). Motivation for learning English as a foreign language in Japanese elementary schools. The Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 28(2), 135-158.\nCelce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching:\n A guide for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.\nChandrasegaran, A. (1986). An exploratory study of EL2 students` revision and self \ncorrective skills. RELC Journal, 17(2), 26-30.\nChandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement \nin the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language \nWriting, 12(3), 267-296.\nChang, S. C. (2005). The effect of multi-draft writing procedure on EFL high school \nstudents’ writing and quality and their attitudes toward writing and revision (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.\nChang, T. K. (2011). A study of vocabulary proficiency and gender differences in \nEnglish vocabulary learning strategies used by junior high school students in \nTaipei (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Chen Chi University, Taipei, \nROC.\nChen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan. \nIn Dept. Applied English, Ming Chuan University (Ed.), Proceedings of the \neighteenth conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of \nChina (pp. 41-58). Taipei, ROC: Crane.\nChiou, M. H. (2005). An analysis of tense errors by junior high school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.\nChiang, P. J. (1992). How to improve English composition teaching in Taiwan’s high \nschools: A study of error types and learning strategies (Unpublished master’s \nthesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.\nChuang, W. (2003). The effect of four different types of corrective feedback on EFL \nstudents’ writing in Taiwan. Shih Chien Journal of General Education, 4, \n123-138.\nCorder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of \nApplied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.\nCohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: \nThe relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ \nexplanations. Language Learning, 26, 45-66.\nCrystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Boulder, CO: \nWestview. Department of Education, Taipei City Government. (2010). \nCurriculum guidelines of elementary English language teaching and learning. \nRetrieved from May, 6th,2012 from \nhttp://etweb.tp.edu.tw/Fdt/D03/share/soushow.aspx?CDE=RSB20101213182433OIA&RESCDE=RES20100920142037OUP\nDinnen, J. L. D., & Collopy, R. M. B. (2009). An analysis of feedback given to strong \nand weak student writers. Reading Horizons, 49(3), 239-256.\nDörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,\nadministration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nEhrlich, R., & Zoltek, S. (2006). It`s wrong not to tell students when they`re wrong. \nJournal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 7-10.\nEisenstein, M. (1983). Native reactions to non-native speech: A review of empirical \nresearch. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 60-76.\nFathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on \nform versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research \ninsights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge \nUniversity Press.\nFerris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft \ncomposition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.\nFerris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL\n Quarterly, 31, 315-339.\nFerris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A \nresponse to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.\nFerris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, \nand where do we go from here? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.\nFerris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the \nshort- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. \nHyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. \n81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nFerris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit \ndoes it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.\nFrantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in \nan intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, \n329-324.\nFurneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback \non student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five \ncountries. IRAL,45(1), 2007.\nGagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.).\n New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.\nGagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M.P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.).\n Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.\nGoldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary \nand student revisions: Teachers and students working together. Journal of \nSecond Language Writing, 13, 63-80.\nGombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Harvester Wheatsheaf, IL: The \nUniversity of Chicago Press. \nHammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1988). Test of written language-2. Austin, TX: \nPro-Ed. \nHan, Z. H. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.\nHarmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Essex, UK: \nPearson Education.\nHartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics. \nLondon, UK: Applied Science.\nHeaton, J. B. (1989). Writing English language tests. London, UK: Longman.\nHedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/ aural revision in foreign \nlanguage writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), \n255-276.\nHiggs, T. V. (1979). Coping with composition. Hispania, 62, 673-678.\nHuang , H. H. (2004). A study of senior high students’ response to peer and teacher \nfeedback on EFL compositions (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan \nNormal University, Taipei, ROC.\nHuang, H. S. (1994). An analytic study on tense errors committed by Chinese learners of English in southern Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.\nHuang, L. J. (2006). A comparison of the effects of underlining with coding system and \nunderlining: Teachers’ feedback on accuracy and fluency (Unpublished master’s \nthesis). National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, ROC.\nHuang, S. P. (2009). The efficacy of teacher feedback on multi-draft writing--a case \nstudy in Taiwan high school English class (Unpublished master’s thesis).\nNational Chen Chi University, Taipei, ROC.\nHuang, Y. P. (2006). The effects of error correction on the English writing of senior \nhigh school students in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan \nNormal University, Taipei, ROC.\nHuddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nHung, Y. H. (2007). A study on EFL six graders’ English composition in an \neight-block folio (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal \nUniversity, Taipei, ROC. \nHyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University \nPress. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ \nwriting. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.\nKasper, L. F. (1995). Applying the principle of nonjudgmental awareness to the ESL \nwriting class. Journal of Teaching Writing, 14(1), 73-85.\nKepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of feedback to the \ndevelopment of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, \n305-313.\nKent, D. (2002). Sharpening your writing skills. British Columbia, Canada: Technical \n Communicators.\nKim, J. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Applied \n Linguistics, 4, 161-170.\nKrashen, S. (2005). The composing process and the academic composing process. In \nY. J. Chen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected papers from the fourteenth \ninternational symposium on English teaching (pp. 66-78). Taipei, ROC: Crane. \nKroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. \nCelce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., \npp. 219-248). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.\nLalande, J. K. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern \nLanguage Journal,66, 140-149.\nLasagabaster, D. (1998). Creatividad y conciencia metalinguistica: Incidencia en el \naprendizaje del ingles como L3. Bilbao, Spanish: University of the Basque \nCountry.\nLeki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written reponse. In B. Kroll \n(Eds.), Second language writing (pp.57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge \nUniversity Press.\nLeki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level \nwriting classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.\nLennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. \nApplied Linguistics, 12(2), 180-196.\nLevy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory & \nCognition, 23(6), 767-779.\nLong, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching \nmethodology. In K. D. Bot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign \nlanguage research in cross- cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, \nNetherlands: Benjamins.\nLi, S. F. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. \nLanguage Learning, 60(2), 309-365.\nLi, Y. S. (2009). A computer-aided analysis of spelling errors made by Taiwanese \nhigh school English students (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Yulin \nTechnical University, Yulin, ROC.\nLin, B. S. (1990). Methodology. Taipei, Taiwan: Wunan.\nLiu, Y. L. (2010). The impact of feedback on EFL college students` revising process \n(Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, \nROC.\nMartlew, M. (1983). Writing in focus. Berlin, Germany: Mouton.\nParsons, R., & Brown, K. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action \nresearcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.\nPincas, A., (1982a). Teaching English writing. London, UK: Macmillan.\nPincas, A., (1982b). Writing in English. London, UK: Macmillan.\nPolio, C., Fleck, N., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners’ \nchanges in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language \nWriting, 7, 43-68.\nRadecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their \nwritten work. System, 16, 355-365.\nRahimi, M. (2008). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian \nEFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: Is learner’s mother tongue relevant? \nRead & Writing, 22(2), 219-243.\nRobb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect\n on ESL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.\nSantos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. (2010). The differential effect of two \ntypes of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation \nvs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1). 131-154.\nSelinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), \n209-231.\nSemke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.\nSchmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied \nLinguistics, 11, 129-158.\nSheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, \n23, 103-110.\nShepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational \nLeadership, 63(3), 66-70. \nSokolik, M. (2003). Writing. In D. Nunan (Ed.) Practical English language teaching, \n(1st ed., pp. 87-108). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Contemporary.\nTan, H. M. (2007). A study of EFL learners’ writing errors and instructional strategies. \nJournal of Kun Shan University, 4, 113-122.\nTaiwan Test Central. (2012). Basic competence test. Retrieved from May, 25th, 2012 \nfrom http://www.taiwantestcentral.com/Tests/Test.aspx?ID=269\nTsang, W. K. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis \nof 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2), \n187-209.\nTruscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. \nLanguage Learning, 46(2), 327-369.\nTruscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric, 27(2), 93-108.\nVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nWang, W., & Dong, Y. (2010). The justification of teacher-guided error correction of \nChinese college students’ English writing. Chinese Journal of Applied \nLinguistics, 33(3), 63-75.\nWang, W. H., & Hu, D. M. (2010). A study on the effect of teacher correction on \nnon-English major college students’ writing. Foreign Language Education in \nChina, 3(1), 41-52. \nWeinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague, NY: Mouton. \nWillingham, D. B. (1990). Effective feedback on written assignments. Teaching of \nPsychology, 17(1), 10-13.\nWilliams, J. D. (1998). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.\nWinterowd, W. R., & Murray, P. Y. (1985). English writing and skills. San Diego, \nCA: Coronado.\nWu, C. P. (2003). A study on the use of feedback in senior high school English\n composition: Students’ preferences and teachers’’ practices (Unpublished \nmaster’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, ROC.\nWu, W. S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the \nrevisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Language and \nLiterature, 3, 125-139.\nZamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.\n\nZamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), \n697-715. | zh_TW |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| item.grantfulltext | open | - |
| item.languageiso639-1 | en_US | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 102001.pdf | 1.33 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.