臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近幾年來，由於諸多原因如網路的便利性、匿名文化、線上社群的廣泛使用，線上發表寫作的方式愈來愈受到歡迎。這股趨勢，從另一方面來說，卻引來關於線上言論自由權的後續關切，原因是線上作家認為他們可以憑藉匿名文化的隱蔽性，免於任何因在網路上不當發言而引來的控訴，這股議題引起相關研究人員莫大的關注，因此這些研究人員開始著手一些研究，但他們未能夠在研究裡凸顯線上寫作應有的正式、嚴謹的角色。
為了獲得學生在線上寫作環境及課堂寫作環境，兩者的行為表現和反應，學生必須把作業上傳到線上平台和私底下交給老師。學生的寫作會以下列面向和理論來分析，如借用Toulmin’s Model研究學生議論文組成的元素；利用功能語言學觀點，分析用特定字彙文法句型表達論點立場和舉例佐證的模式；用活動理論歸納學生寫作時運用的寫作策略。寫作步驟和字彙文法句型分析完後，會進行訪談，收集學生寫作時使用的寫作策略和使用原因。學生的寫作表現和心理效能之間的關聯，會利用自我寫作效能和寫作焦慮調查彼此相關性。
研究結果顯示學生的寫作元素不會因寫作環境的改變而產生很大的差異。字彙文法句型的研究結果則有些許的不同，學生用助動詞和功能連接詞表達論點立場時，在線上寫作環境呈現差異性。寫作策略研究結果共分成三個面向，其結果顯示學生在不同寫作環境時，呈現相似與差異之處。寫作焦慮和自我寫作效能研究結果，也透露兩者和學生實際寫作表現有所關聯。
本研究得出三個教學意涵。第一，學生提出議論論點時，須確保他們的觀點有立場依據，非憑空捏造，且他們使用的字眼也須盡可能保持客觀公正，因為線上公開的言論往往會遭他人用放大鏡來檢視，有的人甚至不懷好意。第二，提出立場相左的觀點，以及Toulmin模式中的其他元素，其重要性皆不容輕忽。老師可以利用詳細的說明和具體的舉證來引起學生對這些元素的注意，隨後老師可以進行實際演練讓學生動手練習。第三，學生由於自身過去的學習經驗，以為在英文寫作方面，文法的重要性大於寫作內容和組織架構，但事實上卻是相反，因此老師可用一些實例來重塑學生對於何謂好的英文寫作應有的信念。

In the recent years, online publication is increasing in popularity thanks to several reasons like the extreme convenience of Internet, features of anonymoity, and widespread use of online communities. On the other hand, this trend induces the subsequent concerns for the rights for freedom of speech online; that is, online writers suppose they can exempt themselves, for obscurity of pseudonym, from any accusation arising from any offensive words they leave in the cyberspace. This issue draws great concerns from researchers who accordingly have conducted several studies in which they, though, failed to highlight the formal position of what online writing should have.
The purpose of this study was to gain a holistic picture of the way students behave and react between the two diverse writing environments, online and in-class, the research collected students’ homework submitted respectively to a forum and the instructor in class. Their writings were analyzed in terms of the following aspects and theoretical frameworks: (a) applied moves (e.g., claim and data) by Toulmin’s Model, (b) lexcial-lignuistic patterns for realizing stance-taking and stance-supporting by Functional Linguistics, (c) writing strategies by Activity Theory. Interviews were conducted after the first two analysis were completed. Interview questions were aimed to elicit those applied writing strategies and reasons. The survey on self-efficacy and writing apprehension was also used to investigate the relationship between students’ performances and fluctuation of affective condition.
The findings suggested there were no remarkable differences between online writing and in-class writing in terms of the applied moves. The results for lexical-grammatical patterns demonstrated differences that modal adjunct and functional conjunction are applied as students express their position in forum, yet not in in-class writing. The results of writing strategies were categoized into three dimensions which revealed similarities and dissimilarities of how they perform in different writing environments. Writing apprehension and self-efficacy also disclosed certain connection to each other and students’ actual performance.
Three pedagogical implications were extended from the present study. First, student writers need to assure what they claim is sturdily supported with hard evidence and the words they select are as unbiased and objective as they can be. The publications online are likely to be scrutinized with critical and even malicious way. Second, the importance of counterargument and other Toulmin’s elements should not be underestimated. Teachers could specifically draw their attention to these elements with detailed elaboration and concrete enumeration, which are followed by hand-on practice. Third, students suppose that grammar more of value than content and organization, which primarily arises from their past learning experience, and in fact it is the other way around. Thus, teachers could remold their belief in what a good writing is supposed to be with more real-life examples.

中文摘要……………………………………………i
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………………………………v
TABLE OF CONETNTS ……………………………………………………………………………vi
LIST OF TABLES.……………………………………………………………………………x
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………………xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ………………………………………1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY……………………………………1
Academic Writing from Socio-Cultural Perspectives ……………2
Argumentative Writing ……………………………………………3
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………4
Research Questions……………………………………………………5
Significance of the Study………………………………………………5
Organization of the Thesis……………………………………………6

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………7
Integration of Online Platform ………………………………………7
Application of forum into Language Learning ……………………8
Research on Forum for Language Learning ………………………9
Application of Strategies in Writing…………………………………11
Research on Writing Strategy ………………………………………11
Sociocultural Framework for Writing Strategy Research ……12
Activity Theory……………………………………………13
Exploration of Anxiety and Self-efficacy in Writing ……16
Writing Anxiety ……………………………………………………17
Self-Efficacy in Writing …………………………………………18
Application of Toulmin’s Model and Functional Linguistics in Writing ...............................................19

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY…………………………………26
Research Design ……………………………………………………26
Course Description …………………………………………………26
Forum for Research …………………………………………………28
Participants …………………………………………………………30
Data Collection ………………………………………………………32
Research Procedures …………………………………………………34
Data Analysis …………………………………………………………35

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ……………………………………………39
Research Question 1: What are the differences or similarities, in terms of moves, between writing on public and high-exposure online forums and in-class writing as an assignment via e-mail to an instructor? ……………………………………39
Research Question 2: What are the differences or similarities, in terms of lexical-grammatical features, between writing on a public and high-exposure online forum and in-class writing as an assignment via e-mail to an instructor?……………………41
Research Question 3: From the social-cultural perspective what kind of writing strategies do participants apply in a public and high-exposure online forum and in in-class writing , as well as in assignments via e-mail to an instructor? ………………………46
Research Question 4: How do the changes in writing environment influence participants’ affective manifestation? ………………………………55

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION …………………59
Discussion ………………………………………………………………59
Research Question 1: What are the differences or similarities, in terms of moves, between writing on public and high-exposure online forums and in-class writing as an assignment via e-mail to an instructor? ……………………………59

Research Question 2: What are the differences or similarities, in terms of lexical-grammatical features, between writing on a public and high-exposure online forum and in-class writing as an assignment via e-mail to an instructor?…………………………………62
Research Question 3: From the social-cultural perspective what kind of writing strategies do participants apply in a public and high-exposure online forum and in in-class writing , as well as in assignments via e-mail to an instructor? …63
Research Question 4: How do the changes in writing environment influence participants’ affective manifestation? ……………………………66
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………67
Pedagogical Implications …………………………………………69
Limitations of the Present Study ……………………………………71
Suggestions for the Future Study ……………………………72

REFERENCES …………………………………………73

APPENDICES …………………………………………81
Appendix A Consent Form for Students ………………81
Appendix B The Survey of Writing Apprehension and Self-Efficacy in Writing …………………………82
Appendix C Interview Questions 1 ……………………87
Appendix D Interview Questions 2 ……………………88
Appendix E A Holistic Scoring Rubric for English Argumentative Papers …………………………90
Appendix F Course Schedule of GEPT High-Intermediate Course …………………………92

Anderson, N. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.757). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates, Inc.

Anson, C., &; Beach, R. (1995). Journals in the classroom: writing to learn. Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., &; Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted Impact of Self-Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206-1222.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman

Bracewell, R. J., &; Witte, S. P. (2003). Tasks, ensembles, and activity. Written Communication, 20, 511-559.

Brockreide, W. E., &; Ehringer, D. (1960). Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and Application, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46, 44-53. Reprinted in R.L. Johannese, (Ed.) Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings. New York: Harper &; Row, 1971.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Chandrasegaran, A., &; Kong, K. M. C. (2006). Stance-taking and stance-support in students’ online forum discussion. Linguistics and Education, 17, 374-390.

Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). NNS students’ arguments in English: Observations in formal and informal contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 237-254.



Charles, A., Graham S, &; Fitzgerald, J. (2008). Introduction. In E. Hinkel (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp.1-8). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates, Inc.

Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E., &; Schallert, D. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417–446.

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota.

Cohen, A. D., &; Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 33-56.

Conrad, S., &; D. Biber (2000). Adverbial making of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Tompson (Eds.) Evaluation in text, 56-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cope, B., &; Kalantzis, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press

Cooper, J., Feldman, J., Selenow, A., Fair, R., Buccerio, F., MacDonald, D. (1987). Reduction of asthenopia after accommodative facility training. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 64(6), 430–436.

Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230-268.

Daly, J. A., &; Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 272-289.

Daly, J. A., &; Miller, M. D. (1975b). Further studies on writing apprehension: SAT scores, success expectation, willingness to take advanced courses, and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 250-260.

Dulay, H., &; Burt, M. (1977) Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finnochiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language (pp. 95-126). New York: Regents.

Erkan, D. Y., &; Saban, A. (2011). Writing Performance Relative to Writing Apprehension, Self-Efficacy in Writing, and Attitudes towards Writing: A Correlational Study in Turkish. Tertiary-Level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(1), 164-192.

Engestrom, M, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., &; Punamäki, R.L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Erkan, D. Y., &; Saban, A. I. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 164-192.

Ferretti, A., Prati, C., &; Rocca, F. (2000). Nonlinear subsidence rate estimation using Permanent Scatterers in differential SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens, 38, 2202–2212.

Gilboa, E., &; Revelle, W. (1994). Personality and the structure of affective responses. In S. H. M. Van Goozen, N. E. Van de Poll, &; J. A. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 135–169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., &; Akey, C. L. (2004). Relations among student perceptions of classroom structures, perceived ability, achievement goals, and cognitive engagement and achievement in high school language arts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.

Greg, K. (2000). Online education : Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Hadaway, N. L. (1987). Writing apprehension among second language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A &; M University, College Station.


Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

Hanna, K. J. (2010). Student perceptions of teacher comments: Relationships between specific aspects of teacher comments and writing apprehension. Ph.D Dissertation, The University of North Dakota.

Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 559-562.

Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language Anxiety and Achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing.
Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2011). Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.

INSIGHTEXPLORERE (n.d.). Entry points are higher in social-network websites than in portal sites. Net surfers spend 15 minutes on Facebook per day.
Retrieved March 12, 2011, from http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_10_27_09.html

Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: an activity-based approach. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., &; Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(1), 17-34.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press Inc.


Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217-236.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In, J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: a collective approach to language learning. ReCALL 20(1), 35-54.

Maranto, G., &; Barton, M. (2010). Paradox and Promise: MySpace, Facebook, and the Sociopolitics of Social Networking in the Writing Classroom. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 36-47.

Mauriello. N., &; Pagnucci, G. S. (1999). The masquerade: Gender, identity, and writing for the web. Computers and Composition, 16(1), 36-47.

Mauriello. N., &; Pagnucci, G. S. (2001). “Can’t We Just Xerox This?”. In Emily Isaacs and Phoebe Jackson (Eds.), Public Works: Student Writing as Public Text (pp. 44-45). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.

McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.

Miyazoe, T., &; Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students' perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199.

Nelson, C. P., &; Kim, M. K. (2001, March). Contradictions, appropriation, and transformation: An activity theory approach to L2 writing and classroom practices. Paper presented at the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, University of Texas, Austin.



Nussbaum, E. M., &; Kardash, C. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169.

Oblinger, D., &; Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the Net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In Arnold, J. (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp.58-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pajares, F., &; Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and Competence in Writing: The role of Self-Efficacy, Outcome, Expectancy, and Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 313-331.

Pajares, F., &; Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.

Pajares, F. (1996). Role of self-efficacy beliefs in the mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325-344.

Piolat, A., Roussey, J. Y., &; Gombert, A. (1999). Developmental cues of argumentative writing. In Andriessen, J. E. B., &; Courier, P. (Eds.). Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 117-135). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Prior, P. A. (2001). A Sociocultural Theory of Writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.54-66). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates, Inc.

Qin, J., &; Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444-456.




Rijlaarsdam, G., &; van den Bergh, H. (1996). Essentials for writing process studies: Many questions and some answers. In Levy, C. M., &; Ransdell, S. (Eds), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp.107-126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.

Russell, D. R., &; Yañez, A. (2003). Big picture people rarely become historians: Genre systems and the contradictions of general education. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/

Savignon, S. J., &; Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated Communication: Texts and Strategies. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 265-289.

Schmoker, M. (2012). FIRST THINGS FIRST: The madness of teacher evaluation frameworks. Phi Delta Kappan May, 93(8), 70-71

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., &; Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.

Sheorey, R., &; Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29 (4), 431-449.

Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist 26, 207–231.

Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect: A review of the anxiety research. Language learning, 28, 129-142.

Storch, M. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interaction in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457-480.


Tai Wan Ying Yu Luen Tan: online forum for English learning. Retrieve from http://www.english.com.tw/modules/newbb/

Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., &; Robinson, E.J. (1999). Individual differences in the writing behaviour of undegraduate students, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 189–199.

Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., &; Robinson, E. J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39, 181-200.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., &; Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Turgut, Y. (2009). EFL learners’ experience of online writing by PBWiki. In Siemens, G., &; Fulford, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, AACE, Chesapeake, VA, pp. 3838-3847.

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple subjectivity and virtual community at the end of the
Freudian century. Sociological Inquiry, 67, 72–84.

Van Patten, B., &; Williams, J. (2007). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. London &; Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Varghese, S., &; Abraham, S. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing ,7, 287-306.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, H. -C., (2009). Weblog-mediated peer editing and some pedagogical recommendations: a case study. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(2), 29-44.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., &; Perencevich K. C. (2004). Children's motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research,97, 299-309.

Williams, T., &; Williams, K. (2010). Self-efficacy and performance in mathematics: Reciprocal determinism in 33 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 453 – 466.

Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Academic discourses and their discourses of learning; Participants, texts and social practices. In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse (pp. 499-523). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.

Wu, W. -S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, 3, 125-139.

Yeh, S. -S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49–83.

You, Y. -L., &; Joe, S. -G. (2002). A Metacognitive Approach to the Problem of Incoherence in EFL Learners’ Writing. Proceedings of 2002 International Conference on English teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 599-610). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cam-bridge University Press.