(34.201.11.222) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/25 05:13
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳鳳如
研究生(外文):Feng-Ru Chen
論文名稱:閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式驗證及其教學效果之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Verification of A Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and Composition: The Effects of the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program"
指導教授:郭生玉郭生玉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Sheng-Yu Kuo
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:教育心理與輔導研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:1999
畢業學年度:87
語文別:中文
論文頁數:201
中文關鍵詞:閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式閱讀與寫作整合的教學寫作者內部的讀者角色功能寫作者角色功能寫作情意反應寫作表現寫作內容觀點的轉化引用閱讀與寫作的自我覺察
外文關鍵詞:A Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and CompositionIntegrated Reading and Composition Programreader-role functionwriter-role functionaffective reactionwriting performanceintertextself-awareness of reading and writing
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:127
  • 點閱點閱:1444
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:20
本研究的目的有三:(一)探討閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程完整模式之適切性,並進一步比較不同寫作能力者在寫作歷程上之讀者角色功能的差異;(二)從完整模式建構寫作歷程的精簡模式,並以實徵資料來驗證此一精簡模式的適配度;(三)依據本研究所建構的閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式,設計閱讀與寫作整合的教學,並考驗此教學的實驗效果,進一步分析教學成效是否因先前寫作能力不同而有差異存在。
在研究一中,以國中二、三年級之高、低寫作能力者各十位為對象,藉由寫作歷程的放聲思考原案分析,以確認寫作歷程中之讀者角色出現的次數與階段,並詳見寫作歷程之細膩的運作狀況。研究結果發現,高寫作能力者具閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程之完整模式,且其內部的讀者角色功能強於低寫作能力者,以致於寫作品質亦優於低寫作能力者。
在研究二中,根據社會建構論的觀點、文獻的證據及研究一之完整模式的架構,進一步提出一個涵蓋寫作者內部的讀者角色功能、寫作者角色功能、寫作情意反應和寫作表現等四個成份的精簡模式。在此,以國中二年級學生為觀察資料,驗證本研究所提出的「閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程精簡模式」與觀察資料的適配度。研究結果發現,本研究所提出的理論模式在整體適配度的考驗上,除易受樣本數影響的卡方考驗外,其餘各項指標都顯示本研究所提出的理論模式與觀察資料可以適配。在模式內在品質的評鑑方面,也顯示理論模式的內在品質尚稱理想。這些結果顯示,本研究所建構的閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程精簡模式,可以用來解釋一般國中二年級學生的觀察資料,而且在這個精簡模式中,變項之間結構關係的假定也大部分獲得支持。
在研究三中,研究者根據閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式,並融合「多重教學策略、教導多種學習策略」的精神,設計閱讀與寫作整合的教學,篩選國中二年級之高、低寫作能力者各二十名,教導其閱讀與寫作結合的策略,以驗證該課程對於寫作表現、閱讀與寫作的自我覺察,以及寫作情意反應等方面具有增進效果和漸進效果的假設。研究結果發現「閱讀與寫作整合的教學」對高、低寫作能力者的寫作表現(包括寫作品質、寫作創意與寫作內容觀點)均具有增進效果,且低寫作能力者的增進效果更為突顯。隨著教學次數的增加,其增進效果愈形顯著。歸結其原因,乃由於寫作內容觀點量數的增加,其中高寫作能力者較多轉化引用,而低寫作能力者較多直接引用,隨著教學次數的增加,高寫作能力者的轉化引用愈增進,而低寫作能力者則否。其次,該教學課程對高、低寫作能力者之閱讀與寫作的自我覺察亦具增進效果,唯低寫作能力者的增進效果尤為顯著。最後再看該教學課程對寫作情意反應的增進效果,就寫作動機、寫作價值感和寫作堅持力而言,實驗組的低寫作能力者均優於控制組的低寫作能力者,唯在寫作信念上,顯示實驗組優於控制組。然在寫作情感上,則未見顯著的增進效果。
最後,研究者根據研究結果,提出幾項建議作為寫作教學及未來進一步研究的參考。
The Verification of A Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and Composition: The Effects of the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program"
Feng-Ru Chen
ABSTRACT
The purposes of this study were (1) to investigate students'' writing process with the use of qualitative analysis, and further to explore the differences between the students with high ability and with low ability in writing; (2)to verify the goodness of fit between empirically observed data and "the Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and Composition" proposed by the author; (3) to examine the effects of the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program".
For these three purposes, the whole study was divided into three parts. Study I was related to qualitative analysis involving thinking-aloud and thinking-by-questioning methods. The participants chosen were consisted of 10 high writing ability and 10 low writing ability students from a junior high school in Taipei. The study intended to analyze the students'' writing process, and further to explore the differences between the students with high writing ability and with low writing ability. The results show that, between the participants with high writing ability and with low writing ability, there were a large amount of differences in their writing process. The participants with high writing ability were more excellent readers than those with low writing ability. Consequently, their writing quality were sure to be better.
In Study Ⅱ, the researcher proposed that the Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and Composition included the components of "reader-role function", "writer-role function", affective reaction, and writing performance. The purpose of this part was to verify the goodness of fit between empirically observed data and "the Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and Composition". The participants were 270 eighth-grade students from three junior high schools in Taipei. The results indicated that the Writing Process Model-Integrated Reading and Composition fitted the observed data well, either when overall or when internal structure model fit criteria was used.
Study Ⅲ was to evaluate the effects of the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program". The participants were 40 eighth-grade students with high writing ability and 40 eighth-grade students with low writing ability. The subjects of high writing ability and low writing ability were randomly assigned into experimental group and control group. The experimental group received the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program" developed by the present author, while the control group received general writing instruction. The results showed that the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program" could promote their writing performance (including quality of writing, creative writing, the aspect of writing), self-awareness of reading and writing, and affective reaction. The experimental group from both high writing ability and low writing ability students performed better than control group in quality of writing, creative writing and "self-awareness of reading and writing". There were interaction between "group" and "assessment stage" on the quality of writing and creative writing. In the experimental group, the quality of writing and creative writing would increase gradually with the number of Instruction. In short, it''s because their aspects of writing increased. According to this, the experimental students with high writing ability would increase more "intertext", while the experimental students with low writing ability would not. In addition, the experimental students with low writing ability performed better than control group in affective variables and "self-awareness of reading and writing".
Based on the results of study I, Ⅱ,and Ⅲ,the effects of the "Integrated Reading and Composition Program" is supported. The researcher also provided a discussion on the results of the study. Some recommendations have made regarding instructional assistance and future studies.
封面
目錄
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機與目的
第二節 待答的問題
第三節 名詞解釋
第二章 理論基礎與文獻探討
第一節 社會建構論的理論基礎
第二節 從社會建構論的觀點重探閱讀與寫作
第三節 從社會建構論的觀點修正Hayes & Flower 的寫作歷程模式
第四節 閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式
第五節 閱讀與寫作整合的教學
第三章 研究一:閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程完整模式之研究
第一節 研究方法
第二節 研究結果
第三節 討論
第四章 研究二:閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程精簡模式之驗證
第一節 研究方法
第二節 研究結果
第三節 討論
第五章 研究三:閱讀與寫作整合的教學效果研究
第一節 研究方法
第二節 研究結果
第三節 討論
第六章 主要發現、結論與建議
第一節 主要發現
第二節 結論
第三節 建議
參考文獻
附錄
參考文獻
一、中文部分
王萬清(民81) 寫作教學初學者之教學內容知識結構及其改變歷程研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
江文慈(民81) 斐哥斯基「近側發展區」之基本概念及其在教學上的應用。現代教育,第七卷,第二十八期,145-156頁。
吳錦釵(民79) 寫作歷程探討與其在教學上的意義。發表於七十八學年度台灣省教育學術論文發表會。
林清山譯(民80) 教育心理學─認知取向。台北,遠流出版。
林清山(民84) 教學心理學的研究新趨向。中國心理學會八十四年度年會演講論文。
林清山主編(民86) 有效學習的方法。教育部輔導計畫叢書32。
林建平(民83) 整合學習策略與動機的訓練方案對國小閱讀理解困難兒童的輔導效果。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
邱美秀(民85) 高中生閱讀兩難故事的工作記憶因果推論歷程研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
紀惠英(民80) 國小六年級學生數學應用問題表徵類型與同構性之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
張景媛(民83) 國中生數學學習歷程統整模式的驗證及應用:學生建構數學概念的分析及數學文字題教學策略的研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
張新仁(民81) 「過程導向寫作教學法」對國小學童之訓練成效。國科會研究報告。
張新仁(民82) 不同寫作能力的國小兒童之寫作過程研究。國科會研究報告。
張瑛玿(民83) 自我發問策略對國小學生的閱讀理解與自我發問能力之影響。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
陳正昌、程炳林(民87) SPSS‧SAS‧BMDP統計軟體在多變量統計上的應用。台北,五南。
陳鳳如(民82) 活動式寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作表現與寫作歷程之實驗效果研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
陳鳳如(民83) 改進國小寫作教學的實驗研究。台灣省政府教育廳專題研究報告。
陳鳳如(民87) 不同寫作能力的國中生在寫作歷程與停頓思考之研究。台北市教師研習中心出版。
黃瑞琴(民80) 質的教育研究方法。台北,心理出版社。
程炳林(民84) 自我調整學習的模式驗證及其教學效果之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
劉錫麒(民80) 合作反省思考的數學解題教學模式及其實徵研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
二、英文部分
Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 133-178.
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1997). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 267-382.
Beal, C. R. (1996). The role of comprehension monitoring in children''s revision. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 219-238.
Bennett, N., & Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 19-32.
Berninger, V. (1994a). Reading and writing acquisition: A developmental neuropsychological perspective, W. C. Brown & Benchmark, Madison, W1. Reprinted by Westview Press.
Berninger, V. (1994b). Future directions for research on writing disabilities: Integrating endogenous and eogenous variables. In G. R. Lyon(Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities(pp.419-439). New Views on Measurement Issues, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S.(1995). Integrating low-level and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293-309.
Berninger, V.W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 193-218.
Berninger, V., Mizokawa, D., Bragg, R., Cartwtright, A., & Yates, C. (1994b). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading writing Quarterly, 10, 259-275.
Berninger, V., & Swanson, H. L.(1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower''s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield(Ed.), Children''s writing :Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing(pp.57-81). JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Berninger, V., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of school Psychology, 34(1), 23-52.
Bracewell, R. J., Frederiksen, C. H., & Frederiksen, J. D. (1982). Cognitive processes in composing and comprehending discourse. Educational Psychologist, 17, 146-164.
Brown, R., & Pressley, M. (1994). Self-regulated reading and getting meaning from text: The transactional strategies insturction model and its ongoing validation. In D. H. Schunk & N. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications(pp.155-180). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella & W. Levelt(Eds.), The child''s concept of language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision:Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-298.
Corbett, E. P. J. (1971). Classical rhetoric for the modern student(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
De Fina, A. A., Anstendig, L. L., & De Lawter, K. (1991). Alternative integrated reading/writing assessment and curriculum design. Journal of Reading, February, 354-359.
Dipardo, A., & Freedman, S. W.(1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom:Theoretic Foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2),119-149.
Driscoll, M. P. (1993). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Emig, J.(1971). The composing process of twelfth graders ( Research Rep. No.13). Urbana, I11.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Englert, C. S., Hiebert, E. H., & Stewart , S. R. (1988). Young writers use text structure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 149-151.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D.(1991). Making Strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-372.
Flower, L. (1990). Introduction: Studying cognition in context. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kautz, K. McCormick & W. C. Peck(Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp.3-32). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39(4),449-461.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980b). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R.(1981a). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32,365-387.
Frank, L. A. (1992). Writing to be read: Young writers'' ability to demonstrate audience awareness when evaluated by their readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 277-298.
Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Effects of context-induced processing operations on semantic information acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-458.
Fulwiler, T. (1987). Teaching with writing. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Gagne'', R. M.(1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne'', E. D., Yekovich, C. N., & Yekovich, F. R.(1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.).Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Gordon, C.(1990). Changes in readers'' and writers'' metacognitive knowledge:Some observations. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(1),1-14.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writer. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 169-181.
Greene, S., & Ackerman, J. M.(1995). Expanding the consturctivist metaphor:A rhetotical perspective on literacy research and practice. Reviewing Educational Research, 65, 383-420.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1997). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980a). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg(Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S.(1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10),1106-1113.
Heller, M. F.(1991). Reading-writing connections from theory to practice. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Hendrickson, R. S. B. (1996). Samuel Beckett''s "Finde Partie": A genetic study. DAI-A, 56/10. (Publication No. AAC9606095)
Hillocks, G. J.(1984). What works in teaching composition: a meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93,133-170.
Hillocks, G. J.(1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership, 44(8), 71-82.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B.(1986).Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243-255.
Katstra, J., Tollefson, N., & Gilbert, E. (1987). The effects of peer evaluation on attitude toward writing and writing fluency of ninth grade students. Journal of Education Research, 80(3), 168-172.
Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C., (1989) Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6, 296-311.
Kucer, S.(1985). The making of meaning:Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written Communication, 2, 317-336.
Laine, M. E. N. (1997).Unmuted voices: The role of oral language in developing perceptions regarding reading and writing relationships of college developmental students. DAI-A, 58/06. (Publication No. AAC9734935)
Langer, J. A. (1984). The effects of available information on responses to school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 27-44.
Lenski, S. D., & Johns, J. L.(1997). Patterns of reading-to-write. Reading Research and Instruction, 37(1), 15-38.
Mason, E. (1973). Collaborative learning. New York: Schochen Books.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
McCormick, K. (1987). Task representation in writing about literature. Poetics, 16, 131-154.
McCutchen, D.(1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability.Journal of Memory and Language, 25,431-444.
McCutchen, D.(1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299-324.
McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text 2, 113-139.
McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 226-248.
Mischel, T.(1974). A case study of a twelfth-grade writer. Research in the Teaching of English, 8,303-314.
Murray, D. M. (1985). A writer teach writing (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Musthafa, B. (1994). Literary response : A way of integrating reading-writing activities. Reading Improvement, 12, 52-58.
Newkirk, T. (1995). The writing conference as performance. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(2), 193-215.
Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G.(1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leaderships,4, 8-12.
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(3), 313-331.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Perl, S.(1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
Petit, K. M.(1993). Editing as parallel to writing and reading, subordirate to communication, and connected to teaching. DAI-A, 55/04. (Publication No. AAC9421915).
Pianko, S.(1979). Description of the composing process of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
Pressley, M. et al.(1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513-556.
Rau, P. S. (1994). How initial plans mediate the expansion and resolution of options in writing.DAI-B, 55/03.(Publication No. AAC9421560)
Roth, R. G. (1987). The evolving audience: Alternatives to audience a accommodation. College Composition and Communication, 38, 47-55.
Samgorinsky, P. (1991). The writer''s knowledge and the writing process: A protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 339-363.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(pp.778-803). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrant(Ed.), What writers Know. New York: Academic Press.
Shanahan, T., & Tierney, R. J. (1990). Reading-writing connections: The relations among three perspectives. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 39,13-34.
Spivey, N. N. (1984). Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing [Monograph]. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spivey, N. N. (1987). Construing constructivism: reading research in the United States. Poetics, 16, 169-192.
Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-287.
Spivey, N. N. (1995). Written dicourse: A constructivist perspective. In L. P. Steffe (Eds.), Constructivism in education(pp.313-329). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. , Slavin, R. E., & Farnsih, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-454.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E.(1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. The Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241-262.
Swales, J. M.(1990). Genre analysis:English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W.(1994). Working memory as a source of individual differences in children''s writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Children''s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing(pp.31-56). JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1994). Individual differences in children''s working memory and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358-385.
Tierney, R., & Pearson, D.(1983). Toward a composing process model of reading. Language Arts, 60, 568-580.
Tierney, R., Soter, A., O''Flahavan, J., & McGinley, W.(1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Whitaker, D. C.(1994).How school psychology trainees learn to communicate through the school psychological report. Dissertation, University of Washington. (Publication No. AAC 9523774)
Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translation process. Learning Individual Differences, 6, 107-130.
Witte, S. P. (1985). Revising, composing theory, and research design. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language (
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔