不同教师反馈类型对以英语为外语的学生作文准确性的作用
|
摘要
大量研究表明教师反馈对英语学习者的写作准确性有积极的促进作用,并且问卷调查显示学生希望从教师那里得到反馈,师生尤其对直接反馈情有独钟。然而许多实证研究结果表明间接反馈对学生写作中语法准确性提高帮助更大。目前很少有研究将传统的直接反馈以外的其他反馈类型与当前被受推崇的间接反馈各类型进行比较,看是否有种既迎合学生喜好又对他们写作有实际作用的反馈方式;同时,许多研究者都赞同学生对不同语法类型习得的效果是不同的。因此本文将一种较新的反馈方式,即直接反馈加师生课堂交流反馈,与其他两种反馈方式(直接反馈和间接反馈)对中低水平学生写作中两种具体语言形式(冠词和介词)准确性的提高效果进行比较分析,探讨了以下两个问题:(1)各反馈方式对学习者写作中的具体语言形式准确性的提高效果是否存在差异,如果有,哪一种效果最好?(2)不同的语言形式在反馈后准确性的提高程度是否有差异,如果有,是怎样的差异?
本实验方案是基于国外相关研究(Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005)为基础设计的。共72名重庆师范大学中低水平非英语专业一年级学生参与了此次研究,所有受试分成3组完成3次命题写作。首先,受试按要求完成写作任务1,教师针对三组受试所完成的作文中两种目标语法形式分别采取3种反馈方式:直接提供正确的语法形式(直接反馈组),提供正确的语法形式后在课堂上教师与每个受试5分钟口头交流(直接反馈加师生交流反馈组),只标注错误(间接反馈组);然后所有受试立即进行写作任务2,以考察3种反馈方式对语言准确性可能产生的及时效果;两周后,三组受试按要求完成写作任务3,以检测各反馈对语言准确性的延时效果。结果表明,三个组从写作任务1到写作任务2对目标语言形式准确性都有显著提高,且直接反馈加师生交流反馈组的提高效果比其它两组稍显著,但其直接反馈和间接反馈组之间却无显著差异;同时从写作任务2到写作任务3,尽管各组的准确性都有衰减,但直接反馈加师生交流反馈组的正确率平均得分却显著高于其它两组;同样其它两组之间不存在显著差异。另一结果是本实验中两种目标语言形式接受反馈后的准确性提高程度不具有显著差异。因此,本研究在一定程度上证明了直接反馈加师生交流反馈更有利于中低水平学生提高写作中语言形式的准确性,对英语学习具有积极的启示意义;然而反馈对更多语言形式的作用有待于以后更多实证研究的探索。
Many earlier researches (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; etc.) have demonstrated that teacher feedback has positive effects on English learners’writing accuracy improvement; and surveys of student opinion about teacher feedback have consistently revealed that L2 students hold a positive view on grammar feedback from their teachers, and further, both teachers and students have strong preference to direct grammar feedback (Leki, 1991; Duff & Li, 2004; etc.). However, the results of many experimental studies seem to show that indirect feedback facilitates learners’grammatical accuracy to a greater extent (Lalande, 1982; Ferris, 1995a, 1995b; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Lee, 1997; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Meanwhile, previous studies have mainly focused on comparing the effects on students’overall writing accuracy between giving feedback or not, or between direct and different indirect teacher feedback types, few studies have checked the effects of other feedback options in comparison with the currently frequently proved indirect feedback types, to see whether there is one kind of teacher feedback which not only caters to students’preferences but also generates positive effect. Additionally, many researchers (Frantzen & Rissell, 1987; Ferris, 1995a; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005) agree that different linguistic categories represent separate domains of knowledge that could not be acquired at the same time. So the present study examines another feedback type (i.e. direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback), comparing its effect on the accuracy of two target error types in lower intermediate EFL students’writings with that of indirect feedback and traditional direct feedback. Two research questions are addressed: (1) Are there differences in the effects of three feedback types on students’writing accuracy of the target error types? If yes, which kind of feedback exerts a greater influence on the improvement? (2) Are there differences between error types in students’writing accuracy improvement under the three feedback conditions? If yes, what are the differences?
This research was designed grounded on relevant studies on teacher feedback home and abroad especially on the study of Bitchener et al. (2005). 72 participants, selected from three intact classes of non-English major freshmen at the lower intermediate proficiency level, participated in the study. The selected participants were divided into three groups to complete the writing tasks on three given topics. First, they were asked to write on topic 1 (Writing Task 1) according to the given directions, the class teacher then provided three feedback types (direct feedback only; direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback in class; indirect feedback by underlining the errors) to the collected first writings across the three groups. Immediately after feedback, the second writing task (Writing Task 2) was assigned to detect the immediate effects of these feedback patterns. Two weeks later, all the participants were required to conduct Writing Task 3 in an attempt to check the delayed effects.
The results indicated that all the three feedback groups performed significantly better in Writing Task 2 than in Writing Task 1, and direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback exerted a marginally greater effect on the accuracy of the two target linguistic forms, but no significant difference between the direct feedback group and the indirect feedback group was observed. From Writing Task 2 to Writing Task 3, although all groups reduced their accuracy mean scores, the scores of the direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback group was significantly higher than the other two groups. Similarly there was no significant difference between the direct group and the indirect group. Another finding was that there were no significant differences in the effects of teacher feedback between the two error types targeted in this study. Therefore, this study, to some degree, has proved that direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback has a desirable effect on the accuracy of specific error type for students at the lower intermediate English proficiency level. Of course, the effects of more feedback types on more linguistic features for varying levels of students deserve more future experimental researches.
本实验方案是基于国外相关研究(Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005)为基础设计的。共72名重庆师范大学中低水平非英语专业一年级学生参与了此次研究,所有受试分成3组完成3次命题写作。首先,受试按要求完成写作任务1,教师针对三组受试所完成的作文中两种目标语法形式分别采取3种反馈方式:直接提供正确的语法形式(直接反馈组),提供正确的语法形式后在课堂上教师与每个受试5分钟口头交流(直接反馈加师生交流反馈组),只标注错误(间接反馈组);然后所有受试立即进行写作任务2,以考察3种反馈方式对语言准确性可能产生的及时效果;两周后,三组受试按要求完成写作任务3,以检测各反馈对语言准确性的延时效果。结果表明,三个组从写作任务1到写作任务2对目标语言形式准确性都有显著提高,且直接反馈加师生交流反馈组的提高效果比其它两组稍显著,但其直接反馈和间接反馈组之间却无显著差异;同时从写作任务2到写作任务3,尽管各组的准确性都有衰减,但直接反馈加师生交流反馈组的正确率平均得分却显著高于其它两组;同样其它两组之间不存在显著差异。另一结果是本实验中两种目标语言形式接受反馈后的准确性提高程度不具有显著差异。因此,本研究在一定程度上证明了直接反馈加师生交流反馈更有利于中低水平学生提高写作中语言形式的准确性,对英语学习具有积极的启示意义;然而反馈对更多语言形式的作用有待于以后更多实证研究的探索。
Many earlier researches (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; etc.) have demonstrated that teacher feedback has positive effects on English learners’writing accuracy improvement; and surveys of student opinion about teacher feedback have consistently revealed that L2 students hold a positive view on grammar feedback from their teachers, and further, both teachers and students have strong preference to direct grammar feedback (Leki, 1991; Duff & Li, 2004; etc.). However, the results of many experimental studies seem to show that indirect feedback facilitates learners’grammatical accuracy to a greater extent (Lalande, 1982; Ferris, 1995a, 1995b; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Lee, 1997; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Meanwhile, previous studies have mainly focused on comparing the effects on students’overall writing accuracy between giving feedback or not, or between direct and different indirect teacher feedback types, few studies have checked the effects of other feedback options in comparison with the currently frequently proved indirect feedback types, to see whether there is one kind of teacher feedback which not only caters to students’preferences but also generates positive effect. Additionally, many researchers (Frantzen & Rissell, 1987; Ferris, 1995a; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005) agree that different linguistic categories represent separate domains of knowledge that could not be acquired at the same time. So the present study examines another feedback type (i.e. direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback), comparing its effect on the accuracy of two target error types in lower intermediate EFL students’writings with that of indirect feedback and traditional direct feedback. Two research questions are addressed: (1) Are there differences in the effects of three feedback types on students’writing accuracy of the target error types? If yes, which kind of feedback exerts a greater influence on the improvement? (2) Are there differences between error types in students’writing accuracy improvement under the three feedback conditions? If yes, what are the differences?
This research was designed grounded on relevant studies on teacher feedback home and abroad especially on the study of Bitchener et al. (2005). 72 participants, selected from three intact classes of non-English major freshmen at the lower intermediate proficiency level, participated in the study. The selected participants were divided into three groups to complete the writing tasks on three given topics. First, they were asked to write on topic 1 (Writing Task 1) according to the given directions, the class teacher then provided three feedback types (direct feedback only; direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback in class; indirect feedback by underlining the errors) to the collected first writings across the three groups. Immediately after feedback, the second writing task (Writing Task 2) was assigned to detect the immediate effects of these feedback patterns. Two weeks later, all the participants were required to conduct Writing Task 3 in an attempt to check the delayed effects.
The results indicated that all the three feedback groups performed significantly better in Writing Task 2 than in Writing Task 1, and direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback exerted a marginally greater effect on the accuracy of the two target linguistic forms, but no significant difference between the direct feedback group and the indirect feedback group was observed. From Writing Task 2 to Writing Task 3, although all groups reduced their accuracy mean scores, the scores of the direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback group was significantly higher than the other two groups. Similarly there was no significant difference between the direct group and the indirect group. Another finding was that there were no significant differences in the effects of teacher feedback between the two error types targeted in this study. Therefore, this study, to some degree, has proved that direct feedback plus teacher-student individual conference feedback has a desirable effect on the accuracy of specific error type for students at the lower intermediate English proficiency level. Of course, the effects of more feedback types on more linguistic features for varying levels of students deserve more future experimental researches.
引文
[1] Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
[2] Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
[4] Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Writing, 14, 191-205.
[5] Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15:357-386.
[6] Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
[7] Chaney, S. J. (1999). The effect of error types on error correction and revision. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of English, California State University, Sacramento.
[8] 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.
[9] Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[10] Cumming, A., & So, S. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 197-226.
[11] Duff, P. A., & Li, D. (2004). Issues in Mandarin language instruction: Theory, research, and practice. System, 32, 443-456.
[12] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, London.
[13] Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on formversus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235-249.
[15] Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8 (1), 41-62.
[16] Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
[17] Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
[18] 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.
[19] Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[20] Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[21] Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
[22] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written correction. In Hyland, K., Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback on Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 1-104). New York.
[23] Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
[24] Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[25] Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155-182.
[26] Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
[27] Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344.
[28] Frantzen, D., & Rissell, D. (1987). Learner self-correction of written compositions: What does it show us? In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dvorak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign Language Learning: A Research Perspective (pp. 92-107). Cambridge: Newbury House.
[29] Gue′nette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16:40-53.
[30] Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-270.
[31] Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
[32] Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
[33] Hendrickson, R. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
[34] Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.
[35] Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
[36] Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
[37] Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modem Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
[38] Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
[39] Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.
[40] Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
[41] Leinhardt, G., & Ohlsson, S. (1989). Tutorials on the structure of tutoring from teachers. Technical Report No. CLIP-89-03 & KUL-89-05. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Center for the Study of Learning, Learning Research and Development Center.
[42] Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.
[43] Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In Belcher, D., Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays in Research and Pedagogy (pp.183-205). Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
[44] Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time:’’ ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.
[45] Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-365.
[46] Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-93.
[47] Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
[48] Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202.
[49] Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-l10.
[50] Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (1996). Patterns of NNS student annotations when identifying areas of concern in their writing. System, 24(3), 323-336.
[51] Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
[52] Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
[53] Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[54] Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539-553.
[55] Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
[56] 李红,吴胜梅(2005),英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意影响的研究,《重庆大学学报》第 2 期:88-91。
[57] 林庆英(2006),论修改在英语写作中对学习者注意现在假设条件句的作用, 重庆大学硕士论文。
[58] 孙凌(2004),论教师反馈在学生对混合虚拟语气语言形式注意中的作用,重庆大学硕士论文。
[59] 吴胜梅(2005),从英语定语从句看英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意的影响,重庆大学硕士论文。
[60] 张雪梅,戴炜栋(2001),反馈·二语习得·语言教学,《外语界》第 2 期:2-8。
[61] 赵锐(2001),英语写作教学中的教师反馈刍议,《太原师范专科学校学报》第 1 期:52-54。
[62] 朱莉华(2004),纠错策略影响下的学生情感, 湖南师范大学硕士论文。
[2] Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
[4] Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Writing, 14, 191-205.
[5] Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15:357-386.
[6] Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
[7] Chaney, S. J. (1999). The effect of error types on error correction and revision. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of English, California State University, Sacramento.
[8] 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.
[9] Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[10] Cumming, A., & So, S. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 197-226.
[11] Duff, P. A., & Li, D. (2004). Issues in Mandarin language instruction: Theory, research, and practice. System, 32, 443-456.
[12] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, London.
[13] Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on formversus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235-249.
[15] Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8 (1), 41-62.
[16] Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
[17] Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
[18] 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.
[19] Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[20] Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[21] Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
[22] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written correction. In Hyland, K., Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback on Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 1-104). New York.
[23] Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
[24] Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[25] Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155-182.
[26] Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
[27] Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344.
[28] Frantzen, D., & Rissell, D. (1987). Learner self-correction of written compositions: What does it show us? In B. VanPatten, T. R. Dvorak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign Language Learning: A Research Perspective (pp. 92-107). Cambridge: Newbury House.
[29] Gue′nette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16:40-53.
[30] Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-270.
[31] Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
[32] Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
[33] Hendrickson, R. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
[34] Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.
[35] Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
[36] Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
[37] Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modem Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
[38] Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
[39] Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.
[40] Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
[41] Leinhardt, G., & Ohlsson, S. (1989). Tutorials on the structure of tutoring from teachers. Technical Report No. CLIP-89-03 & KUL-89-05. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Center for the Study of Learning, Learning Research and Development Center.
[42] Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218.
[43] Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In Belcher, D., Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays in Research and Pedagogy (pp.183-205). Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
[44] Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time:’’ ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.
[45] Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-365.
[46] Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-93.
[47] Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
[48] Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202.
[49] Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-l10.
[50] Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (1996). Patterns of NNS student annotations when identifying areas of concern in their writing. System, 24(3), 323-336.
[51] Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
[52] Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
[53] Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[54] Young, D. J. (1990). An investigation of students’ perspectives on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 539-553.
[55] Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
[56] 李红,吴胜梅(2005),英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意影响的研究,《重庆大学学报》第 2 期:88-91。
[57] 林庆英(2006),论修改在英语写作中对学习者注意现在假设条件句的作用, 重庆大学硕士论文。
[58] 孙凌(2004),论教师反馈在学生对混合虚拟语气语言形式注意中的作用,重庆大学硕士论文。
[59] 吴胜梅(2005),从英语定语从句看英语写作中教师反馈对学生注意的影响,重庆大学硕士论文。
[60] 张雪梅,戴炜栋(2001),反馈·二语习得·语言教学,《外语界》第 2 期:2-8。
[61] 赵锐(2001),英语写作教学中的教师反馈刍议,《太原师范专科学校学报》第 1 期:52-54。
[62] 朱莉华(2004),纠错策略影响下的学生情感, 湖南师范大学硕士论文。