自從Truscott(1996)呼籲教師廢止書面修正性回饋，其有效性一直都備具爭
議性。由於書面修正性回饋之早期研究多有研究方法上之疏漏，過去十年來學者
們致力於改善此類研究之研究設計，並普遍發現在以英語為第二語言的教學情境
中，用以訂正學生冠詞使用(a/an 用以表示名詞為「第一次提及」，the 用以表示「前指照應」)的聚焦式修正性回饋有助於提升學生冠詞使用的正確度。為了瞭
解此現象是否亦會在以英語為外語的教學情境中發生，本研究旨在探究書面聚焦
式修正性回饋對於臺灣大學生冠詞習得之影響。然而，和先前研究不同，本研究
將訂正範圍擴增至所有名詞片語之冠詞使用，且採用生態效度較高的研究設計
(寫作測驗和寫作作業配合課程教學進度、讓學生在家修改作業、訂正範圍擴增
等)，並另外探討兩項學習者因子─「語言分析能力」和「對文法正確度態度」
─是否調節聚焦式修正性回饋對學生冠詞使用進步幅度之影響。
本研究以參與大一英文課程的兩班中高級程度學生作為實驗對象，並採用
「前測─後測─延宕後測」之研究設計。所有實驗對象皆完成三項寫作測驗以測
量其冠詞使用的正確度。在前測和後測之間，所有實驗對象另外完成了三項寫作
作業、取得回饋並依據回饋進行修改。作為實驗組的一班，其冠詞使用，在此三
項作業上其冠詞使用得到聚焦式修正性回饋及後設語言解釋；做為控制組的另一
班，在此三項作業上只取得和寫作內容、組織和風格相關之評語，未得到聚焦式
修正性回饋。研究對象之語言分析能力是由語言分析測驗測得，而其對寫作文法
正確度之態度則透過一份態度問卷評量。
研究結果顯示，雖然在前測上兩組的英文冠詞使用正確性具顯著差異，在後
測和延後測上，兩組的冠詞使用表現皆無顯著差異。此外，實驗組內的長期學習
增益達到邊際顯著水準，而控制組卻沒有達到顯著水準。不過，學生的語言分析
能力並未具顯著調節聚焦式修正性回饋對學生冠詞使用進步幅度之效果，其對文
法正確度之態度亦無顯著調節此類回饋對學生冠詞使用進步幅度之效果。本研究
結果顯示在生態效度較高的研究設計下聚焦式修正性回饋較難達到正面效果。本
研究的結果可作為英文老師有效使用聚焦式修正性回饋之參考，也提供一些修正
性回饋以外的建議可幫助學生改善其冠詞使用。

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) has long been a controversial issue since Truscott’s (1996) call for abandoning this teaching practice. Early research on WCF also suffered various methodological problems. In the past decade, researchers have used more rigorous research design to understand the effectiveness of WCF, and they generally find that in an ESL instructional setting,
focused WCF which is directed only at L2 students’ use of articles (more specifically, a/an for the first-mention usage, and the for the anaphoric usage) can help improve
their accuracy of article use. To understand whether this phenomenon would also occur in an EFL instructional setting, this study investigated the effect of focused WCF on Taiwanese college students’ acquisition of articles. But different from previous research, this study expanded the treatment scope to all English articles in noun phrases and adopted a research design of more ecological validity, where the writing tests and tasks were synchronized with the schedule of the course, take-home revisions were involved, and the treatment scope was expanded. Moreover, two other
factors, the students’ language analytic ability and their attitudes toward grammatical accuracy in writing, were also included to explore if they would moderate the effect of
focused WCF on their short-term and longer-term gains in article use accuracy.
The participants came from two high-intermediate level classes in a freshman English course. This study adopted a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design, and all of the participants were required to complete three writing tests, which were designed to probe into their article use accuracy. Between the pretest and the immediate posttest
were three treatment tasks, and all participants were required to revise after receiving feedback. While one class served as the experimental group and received focused
WCF with metalinguistic explanations on their article use in the treatment tasks, the other class served as the control group and did not receive focused WCF but comments on content, organization, and style in the treatment tasks. The participants’ language analytic ability was measured by a language analysis test, and their attitudes toward grammatical accuracy in writing were gauged by an attitude questionnaire.
The results demonstrate that though there was a significant difference between the two groups in the pretest, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the immediate and delayed posttests. Furthermore, the improvement from pretest to delayed posttest reached a marginal significant level for the experimental group but not for the control group. However, the students’ language analytic ability was not found to significantly moderate the effect of focused written CF on their short-term or longer-term gains in article use accuracy, and neither did their attitudes toward grammatical accuracy. The findings of this thesis, on the one hand, suggest the potential difficulty of achieving the positive effect of focused WCF in an ecologically valid research design. On the other hand, the findings offer some implications for English teachers to utilize focused WCF in a more efficient condition and some alternative ways to help students improve their article use.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton-Keynes, England: Open University Press & Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
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, 227-257.
Anderson, N. J. (2007). ACTIVE skills for reading: Book 4, (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle.
Barrett, (2010). A corpus-based analysis of English articles in Taiwanese students’ EFL writing. Master thesis, National Cheng Kung University.
Berent, G. B. (n.d.). Supporting English acquisition: A resource for educators of deaf and hard-of-hearing students and other students of English as a second language [website]. Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://www.rit.edu/ntid/rate/sea/
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
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, 191-205.
Brender, A. (2002). The effectiveness of teaching articles to (-ART) students in EFL classes using consciousness raising methods. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University.
Brewer, M. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. Reis, & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. (pp. 3-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451-480.
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K.C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp.83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
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.
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
Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden, & J. Robin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). Cambridge: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teachers and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dekeyser, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-514.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback: Epilogue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
Ellis, R., Lowen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,
339-368.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193-204.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39, 229-239.
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. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
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. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Ed.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp.
81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL compositions: Purpose, process, and practice (1st ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL compositions: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
Horowitz, D. (1986). Process not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
Hsiao, H.-Y. (2006). On the teachability of the English article system and the efficacy of two types of article instruction. Master thesis: National Tsing Hua University.
Huang, L.-J. (2006). A comparison of the effects of underlining with coding system and underlining teachers’ feedback on accuracy and fluency. Master thesis, National Cheng Kung University.
Huang, Y.-P. (2006). The effects of error correction on the English writing of senior high school students in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Huang, S.-P. (2009). The efficacy of teacher feedback on multi-draft writing: A case study in Taiwan high school English class. Master thesis, National Chengchi University.
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35, pp.141-163.
Hung, A.-H. (2011). Similarities and differences between EFL students’ and teachers’ beliefs in grammar instruction and error correction. Master thesis, National Chengchi University.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Incecay, V., & Dollar, Y. K. (2011). Foreign language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3394-3398.
Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li , D. C.S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 1-23.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second Language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Leki, I. (1991a). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogues. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
Leki, I. (1991b). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Li, C.-Y. (2008). The influence of teacher response on students' revision in an EFL setting. Master thesis, National Chiao Tung University.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
Lin, C.-J. (2012). Investigating the effects of error correction and EFL students’ attitudes toward error correction in writing. Master thesis, I-Shou University.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., & Ahn, S. (2009). L2 learners' beliefts about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91-104.
Maratsos, M. (1976). The use of definite and indefinite reference in young children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Master, P. (1997). The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy. System, 25, 215-232.
Master, P. (2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30, 331-348.
Moore, J. M.(2004). Articles and proper names in L2 English. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Oxford Dictionary Online (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/the-oxford-english-dictionary-relaunched
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Pica, T. (1985). The selective impact of classroom instruction on second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 214-222.
Pimsleur, P. (1968), Aptitude testing. Language Learning, 18, 73–77.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: a meta-analysis of the research Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Sawyer, M., & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences and L2 instruction. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343-364.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258.
Semke, H., & College, W. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 169-179.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556-569.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.
Shih, W.-R. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of error correction in EFL writing classes for continuing education university English majors in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Taiwan University of Science Technology.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29-46.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seildhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies
in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2012, from http://www.ldoceonline.com/
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, 8, 111-222.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton's critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 329-335.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 45-58.
Wu, W.-S. (2012). The influence of web-based corrective feedback as grammatical input enhancement on EFL writing. Doctoral dissertation, Tamkang University.
Xu, C. Q. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102.