本研究旨在檢驗三種FonF教學方式：指正性回饋 (CF)，輸入強化 (IE) 及思處指引 (PI) 在三面向的成效。此三面向分別是：(1) 強化高中學生英文寫作－看圖說故事－使用動詞過去式的整體效益；(2) 比較每項教學方式間的相對效益, 以及 (3) 效益的延續性。本項研究於台北艋舺一中實施，160位來自四個班級的高一學生分成四組，一對照組，三實驗組，四組都接受二階段前測，一階段選擇，一階段寫作文，為看圖說故事題型。前測之後, 進入實驗階段，三實驗組接受各教學活動，活動後填寫檢視學生學習期間注意力的問卷。最後，全四組學生接受後測、延遲後測，皆為寫作，題型為看圖說故事。動詞過去式使用的正確率計算後輸入統計軟體分析，使用重複量數雙因子變異數分析、單因子變異數分析、事後分析(Scheffe)以及重複量數單因子變異數分析，數據結果的判讀輔以問卷所顯示的學生接受教學期間意識型中的注意力多寡程度。結果顯示FonF整體有效強化學生對過去式的注意，此發現與指正性回饋大部份的文獻結果吻合，指正性回饋是FonF教學活動的一環，大部份的文獻支持在寫作中使用指正性回饋。在FonF教學方式中，思處指引與指正性回饋成效大於輸入強化，成效延續到了延遲後測。此三項教學方式的成效差異，其中可能的原因為學習者的意識與思辨處理機制，本研究的討論著眼於此。

This study aimed to examine three Focus on Form (FonF) treatments: corrective feedback (CF), input enhancement (IE) and processing instruction (PI), in terms of (1) the overall efficacy on fostering high school students’ ability in applying the past tense in picture-story writing; (2) the relative efficacy of each treatment after comparison; and (3) the sustainability of the efficacy. Assigned to four groups, 160 first-grade students from four intact classes in First Manka Senior High School first received a two-fold pretest, with multiple choice questions and a picture-story writing task. Conducted next in the treatment session were the treatments of the three pedagogical activities and a post intervention where students filled out a questionnaire, for the purpose of examining learner noticing. Finally, there were a posttest and a delayed posttest, both of which contained a picture-story writing task. Accuracy ratio was accounted for and analyzed, using a two-way repeated-measure ANOVA, and a one-way ANOVA, followed by Scheffe post-hoc analysis. The interpretation of the outcome was complemented by the responses from the questionnaires, which elicit learner responses that reflect the extent of awareness involved. The finding showed that FonF pedagogical treatments as a whole were facilitative of enhancing learners’ awareness of the target language form, which echoes CF literature, which is itself a form of FonF pedagogical treatment, and most of which favored the conduction of corrective feedback in writing instruction. Among the FonF pedagogical treatments, PI and CF were more effective than IE, with the efficacy sustained in the delayed post test. The differences among the three FonF treatments can be accounted for by the factor, among possible others, of learner awareness and processing mechanism involved.

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Human memory: Decoding and storage. In J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and its implications (pp. 170-200). New York: Worth
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451-480.
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-226). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217
Bitchener, 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.
Carroll, S. (2004). Some comments on input processing and processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 293-310). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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, 267–296.
Cheng, A. C. (2002). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of ser and estar. Hispania, 85, 308-323.
Cheng, A. C. (2004). Processing instruction and Spanish ser and estar: Forms with semantic-aspectual values. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 119-142). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collentine, J. (2004).Commentary: Where PI research has been and where it should be going. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 169-182). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The modern language journal, 77, 501-514
DeKeyser, R. M. (1994). How implicit can adult second language learning be? In J. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in second language learning (pp. 83-96): AILA Review, Vol. 11.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Doughty, C. (2004). Commentary: When PI is focus on form it is very, very good, but when it is focus on forms …. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 257-270). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.7
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 197-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farley A. P. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 143-168). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Farley A. P. (2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-226). New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000, March 11-14). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference.
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, 161–184.
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597-618.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harrington, M. (2004). Commentary: Input processing as a theory of processing input. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 79-92). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hulstijn, J., & De Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? In J. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in second language learning (pp. 97-112): AILA Review, Vol. 11.
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughy, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp183-216). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press
Kim, H, Y. (1995). Intake from the speech stream: Speech elements that L2 learners attend to. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp 65-84). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lee, J, F. (2004). On the generalizability, limits, and potential future directions of processing instruction research. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 311-324). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79-89.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557-584.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 177-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. (2004). Commentary: What to teach? How to teach? In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 65-78). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Eds.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278):Annas of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 379.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 45-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” vs. “unconscious learning.” TESOL Quarterly, 24, 617-634.
Palmeira, W, K. (1995). A study of uptake by learners of Hawaiian. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp 127-162). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press
Park, E. S. (2004). Constraints of implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Teacher's collge, Columbia Universtiy working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-30.
Reder, L. M., & Ross, B. H. (1983). Integrated knowledge in different tasks: Positive and negative fan effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 8, 55-72
Robinson, P. (1995). Review article: Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language learning, 45, 283-331.
Rosa E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece of the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delievered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241-256). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA REVIEW, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt 9Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-65). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118-132.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 64-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, I, 111-122.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
VanPatten, B. (1991). Grammar instruction and input processing. In The special colloquium on the role of grammar instruction in communicative language teaching, Concordia University and McGill University, Montreal.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction, prior awareness and the nature of second language acquisition: A (partial) response to Batstone. Language Awareness, 11, 240-258.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input Processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Several reflections on why there is good reason to continue researching the effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 325-335). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B. (2005). Processing instruction. In C. Sanz (Eds.), Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 267-281). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
VanPatten, B., & Fernandez, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 273-290). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: Another replication. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 97-118). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wickens, C. D. (1989). Attention and skilled performance. In D. H. Holding (Ed.), Human Skills (2nd ed. Pp. 71-105). New York: John Wiley.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 139-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Eds.), Processing Instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-206). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wong, W. (2005). Input and input enhancement. In W. Wong (Eds.), Input Enhancement: from Theory and Research to the Classroom. (pp. 24-36). New York: McGraw-Hill.