在第二语言习得研究领域，书面纠错反馈是否能够帮助学习者更加准确地使用语法一直是一个富有争议的问题。以 Truscott (1996) 为代表的一批学者认为书面纠错反馈不能帮助学习者提高其正确使用英语语法的能力；另有一些学者（如 Ellis, 2008）则持有相反的观点，认为书面纠错反馈能够帮助学习者更加准确地使用一部分语法项目。　　　本研究在Ellis等人（2008）研究的基础上，通过复制并改进其研究，试图回答：（1）纠错反馈能否对中国高中学生准确使用冠词表达“首次提及”和“再次提及”时产生积极影响？（2）聚焦型纠错反馈和非聚焦型纠错反馈对中国高中学生准确使用冠词表达“首次提及”和“再次提及”时的影响上是否存在差异？　　　本研究通过一个包含了前测、后测以及延迟后测的研究设计，比较了聚焦型和非聚焦型纠错反馈在中国高中生使用英语冠词表达首次提及和再次提及的效果。共有86名被试参与了本研究，他们被分为三组。其中实验组一的被试接受研究者给予的针对冠词用法的聚焦型纠错反馈，实验组二的被试接受研究者给予的非聚焦型纠错反馈，而控制组的被试不接受任何纠错反馈。延迟后测结束之后，所有被试都参与了旨在探讨被试对写作测试目的认识情况的调查问卷，部分在测试中成绩表现异常的被试接受了研究者的采访。　　　通过对三组被试在研究中前测、后测以及延迟后测成绩、问卷调查和访谈的数据分析，研究结果显示：（1）书面纠错反馈能够帮助中国高中生更准确地使用冠词表达首次提及和再次提及的功能；（2）聚焦型纠错反馈与非聚焦型纠错反馈对中国高中生使用冠词表达首次提及和再次提及功能的准确度上的影响没有显著差异。本研究的研究结果与Ellis等人(2008)的研究结果一致，进一步证实了书面纠错反馈的有效性。

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback (CF) on the improvement of grammatical accuracy is contentious in the field of second language acquisition. Truscott (1996) believed that written CF is not useful in enabling learners to improve their accuracy in use of grammar while other researchers like Ellis (2008) held the view that written CF has a positive role in enhancing learners’ use of certain grammatical features.　　　The current study is a replication study of a research by Ellis et al. (2008) in which the research design is adapted. The current research mainly discusses the following two questions: (1) Does written CF help Chinese learners of English to become more accurate in the use of the English indefinite and definite articles to express first and second mention? (2) Is there a difference in the effect of unfocused and focused CF directed at using the indefinite and definite articles to express first and second mention?　　　Using a pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test design, the current research compared the effects of focused and unfocused written CF on the accuracy with which Chinese high school students used the English indefinite and definite articles to express first mention and second mention. 86 students from senior one took part in this research, who have been divided into three groups. The experimental group one received corrective feedback of just article errors on three written narratives while the experimental group two received corrective feedback of article errors and any other errors they may have made in their written tasks. And the control group did not receive any corrective feedback except an overall evaluation on their written tasks. After the delayed post-test, all the participants was required to complete an exit questionnaire whose purpose was to see whether they had recognized the focus of the written tasks. And three participants whose had an abnormal score in the writing tests accepted researcher’s interview. 　　　After analyzing the data collected in the research, it turned out that: (1) written corrective feedback helps Chinese learners of English to become more accurate in the use of the English indefinite and definite articles to express first and second mention; (2) There is no difference in the effect of unfocused and focused CF directed at using the indefinite and definite articles to express first and second mention. This conclusion was in accord with the result made by Ellis et al. (2008) and further indicates that written CF is effective.