|摘要: ||本研究主要在調查學生在修改作文的過程中，如何理解及處理教師的批改及回饋，並檢視會影響學生理解及回應老師批改及回饋的因素。本研究採用質性及量化研究方法。質性資料來源包括學生訪談、出聲思考紀綠 (think-aloud protocol)、學生作文與教師批改及回饋。參與研究的訪談受試者，為十一位以英語為主修的大二學生，透過與研究者進行深入訪談及質性資料分析，學生如何處理教師的批改及回饋、影響學生理解及回應老師批改及回饋的因素得到初步結論。根據質性研究結果，發展第二階段之問卷調查。其問卷調查由123位大二英文系學生完成填答。研究結果顯示，學生會透過多種方法理解及處理教師的批改及回饋。然而，結果顯示部份學生依然誤解、無法理解或採用教師的批改及回饋，其因素為教師提供不足或不適當的批改及回饋，學生語言能力不足、不正確的舊有知識，以及學生的態度與對寫作內容的想法。本研究發現，相較於提供批改代碼(correction codes)，學生偏好教師直接提供回饋(給與正確答案)或描述性的文字回饋。此外，在研究中也發現學生信任教師之批改及回饋。本研究建議，英作文教師在批改錯誤及提供回饋給學生時，需謹慎地處理，並提機會與學生會談或討論。|
The purpose of the present study was to investigate how students perceive their teachers’ feedback, to explore how students process teacher feedback when revising their writing, and the factors that influence students’ perceptions and responses. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative research, interviews were conducted with students which included think-aloud protocols, and data was collected data from questionnaires, interview transcripts, writing with teacher feedback, and related revisions. For qualitative data collection, eleven college English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students were interviewed, and their perceptions and behavior while processing teacher feedback were analyzed. In order to know whether the results of qualitative research were applicable to a larger population, the questionnaire in which the questions emerged from the interviews was completed by 123 sophomores.
The results of the qualitative and quantitative research showed that the students had various ways of perceiving and processing teacher corrections and feedback. The factors which caused their failure to understand or incorporate teacher corrections and feedback were related to their teachers’ insufficient and improper corrections and feedback, the students’ insufficient language abilities and existing knowledge, as well as their attitudes and opinions. In addition, it was also found that students misunderstood or had difficulties incorporating and understanding teacher corrections and feedback, and they preferred direct corrections (teachers providing the correct forms), descriptive feedback, and correction marks, such as underlines or circles rather than correction codes (e.g., “wf” or “sp”). Nonetheless, the findings showed that there was a trusting relationship between students and their teachers. The findings suggest that teachers need to handle correction codes carefully as well as other types of correction and feedback, and must communicate with their students.