在英文為外國語言之情境下教師回應對學生寫作修正之影響

Abstract

由於外語學習的熱潮與各國國際學生的日益增加，第二外語寫作（Second Language Writing）在過去數十年間已迅速發展。就英語而言，許多第二外語寫作的理論除了源自於母語寫作（First Language Writing）的概念，同時也自行發展出許多更適合英語為外國語言（EFL）之學習者的理論與教學法。此外，由於「過程導向」（Process Approach）的寫作觀點廣被寫作研究學者與寫作教師們所推崇與採用，近十年的寫作流程也由過去重視單篇文章中修正文法錯誤之練習方式，轉變成現在的先協助學生透過組織文章內容充份表達自己的想法後，再專注於用字等語言文法錯誤的更正，期許透過多次修改（Revision）的過程，讓學生可以提升真正寫作能力。 因此，許多第二外語寫作專家專注於探究教師回應（Teacher Response）在學生寫作與修改過程所扮演的角色與其影響力。許多研究顯示，教師回應的模式對學生在文章的內容上有幫助；然而，教師回應對學生在文法更正與掌握上的效果似乎還尚未定論。而這些研究教師回應的文獻中，其研究對象皆為大專程度之學生，鮮少專文探究語言程度較低的高中生。也因此，本研究著重於教師回應對高中生在英文寫作與寫作修改上的影響。 本研究旨在探究兩種教師回應的方式施用在兩組各二十名的台灣高中生之影響，並且藉由各組在英文寫作與修改上的表現、回顧報告（retrospective protocol）、問卷與訪談等方式，針對這兩種書面回應方式的影響作量化與質化的分析探討。實驗組接受以問題為主的回應方式（Question-based TR）；對照組則接受直接修改的回應方式（Direct-correction TR）。這兩種書面回應皆包含針對文法錯誤的回應（grammar-focused TR）與針對文章內容安排的回應（content-focused TR）。就文法部份，本研究僅探討學生在時式上的錯誤；就內容組織上，本研究著重於學生文章是否含有主旨句（thesis statement）。 結果顯示，教師回應對學生寫作之修正有立即性的效果：兩組學生在修正版的文章中文法錯誤皆明顯下降。然而，在面對主旨句的使用，接受教師提問的實驗組表現不如對照組好。對另一研究問題，即教師回應在學生修正版本中的影響力是否持續至另一篇新文章中，本研究發現無論實驗組或對照組，大多數的學生在新文章中都出現文法錯誤增加的現象，對於主旨句的掌握亦有退步的現象；而這兩種退步的現象尤以接受直接修改的對照組為嚴重。詳細分析每位學生的三篇文章、回顧報告、問卷與訪談，我們得知多數學生沒有進步主要是在書寫新文章的時候相當粗心大意而非不懂應該使用何種時式，因此在以簡單式的時式項目錯誤最多。此外，多數學生對英文寫作中「主旨句」的概念似乎仍無法通盤理解與確切掌握，顯示中文缺乏時式與時態的使用與不大需要主旨句的寫作風格影響了這群英語為外國語言的學習者。 雖然教師回應的持續影響效果在本研究中不明顯，絕大多數學生在問卷中表示對各自所得到的教師回應則持肯定的態度，認為自己在這三次寫作經驗中學到一些東西，同時也指出有試圖從教師回應中所學到的知識應用於新的文章之中。此外，學生的回顧報告也讓本研究深入地探討學生對教師回應之看法與態度，較為特殊的發現為：實驗組對教師的提問有較多的意見與反駁，而對照組對於教師的直接修改都完全接受。這反映了以提問為主的教師回應讓學生有更多的思考空間，此外，提問也讓學生對個人錯誤較有警覺。 最後，透過這四十位高中學生對這三次寫作流程與教師回應的意見，期能帶給高中教師們有更多寫作教學上的想法與應用，也能為同領域的研究學者們在未來的研究上有更多的參考與建議。

The development of second language writing has boomed with the wide spread of foreign language learning and the increasing number of international students over the last decades. In English, many L2 writing theories originate from L1 writing theories but meanwhile more theories and methods have been developed and adapted for EFL learners. In this decade, with the advocacy of process approach by writing researchers and teachers, students' writing procedure has changed, from focusing on error correction in a single draft to focusing on content and organization first and then on grammar in multiple drafts. This process-oriented approach, by means of revising, is expected to improve students' composing competence. As a result, many L2 writing researchers have investigated the influences of teacher response (TR) on students' writing and revising processes. A large number of studies have shown that TR is of help to content development while the effectiveness of the TR on students' mastery of grammar and error correction seems unfixed. What is more, most research targeted students at the college level, but few studies have investigated students at the lower level such as senior high school students. Therefore, the present study aims at examining the influences of TR on senior high school students' revision and subsequent writing. The purpose of this study is to analyze two types of TR employed for two groups of students quantitatively and qualitatively via students' writing performances over three drafts, retrospective protocols, questionnaires, and interviews. The experimental group received question-based TR and the control group received direct correction as TR. Both types of TR include grammar-focused TR on tense usages and content-focused TR on the use of a proper thesis statement. The findings reveal that TR has an instant effect on students' revision: both groups have lower error ratios in the revision. However, in terms of the use of a thesis statement in an essay, students receiving question-based TR do not perform as well as those receiving direct correction. In addition, the immediate effect of the TR on the revision does not sustain in the new essay: in both groups, most students show more errors in tense usages in the new essay; their ability to use a thesis statement regresses as well, particularly in the direct-correction group. Students' carelessness when they are writing contributes a lot to the increasing error ratios in the new essay. Besides, many students have difficulty using an appropriate thesis statement for their essay, suggesting the use of a thesis statement may be difficult for students at this level. This implies possible first language interference—there is no clear use of tense and aspect in Mandarin and no necessity of using a thesis statement in a Chinese essay. Although the carry-over effect of the TR is not significant in this study, a majority of the students show a positive attitude towards the TR they receive, pointing out in the questionnaire that they learn something from the TR and also try to apply what they have learned from the TR to the new essay. Furthermore, students' retrospective protocols also reveal students' different reactions to TR. Those who receive TR in the form of a question have more opinions or disagreements while those who are given direct-correction TR tend to revise their drafts simply following the TR. This suggests that question-based TR gives students more opportunities to think over their problems and that asking questions may help student raise their consciousness of their own errors and problems. Finally, the findings from this study, and opinions proposed by the participants in this study should render senior high school teachers useful pedagogical implications and provide L2 writing researchers with insightful suggestions for further research.