跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.225.157) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/16 00:24
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:左婉薇
研究生(外文):Wan-wei Tso
論文名稱:同儕評論方式在英文寫作上的效益
論文名稱(外文):The Effectiveness of Peer Evaluation on EFL Writing
指導教授:傅馨芳傅馨芳引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsin-fang Fu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:77
中文關鍵詞:寫作教學同儕評論英文寫作
外文關鍵詞:writing instructuionpeer evaluationEnglish composition
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:9
  • 點閱點閱:854
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:234
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:14
本論文的主旨在探討同儕評論方式在學生英文寫作上的效益,主要目的在了解:(1)學生是否有能力評論同儕的英
文作文? (2)經過同儕評鑑後,學生所改寫成的作文完稿是否比初稿好? (3)學生在作文完稿上的表現差異,是
否與同儕的建議有關?(4)同儕評論的學習效益是否能延續?學生的下一篇作文是否比上一篇好? (5)學生對於同
儕評論活動的觀感?
本研究對象為高雄某高職綜合高中部一年級學生四十人。本研究進行的教學活動目標為學習說明文段落的寫作
。本研究的主要工具是一份問卷,及一份評鑑表。這評鑑表列出了說明文段落結構必備的特徵,是整個教學活動
的主軸;老師授課、學生寫作、及同儕評論都依循這份評鑑表。研究過程中,老師先講解說明文段落的寫法,並
要求學生在家完成第一篇作文的初稿。三天後,老師先示範使用評鑑表進行同儕評鑑,再讓學生在課堂上與同學
交換初稿,進行第一次同儕評論,並在回家後根據同儕建議修改文稿。二天後,學生在課堂上再與另外二位同學
交換第二稿,進行第二回同儕評論。學生回家後,根據同儕建議再修改第二稿。學生於次日繳交初稿、次稿、完
稿,及二次同儕評鑑時填寫之評鑑表,並在課堂上回答問卷。間隔三週後,學生再寫第二篇說明文段落。本研究
分析學生第一篇作文的初稿、次稿、完稿,第二篇作文的初稿,及二次同儕評論的評鑑紀錄,以釐清同儕評論的
效益。
研究結果發現:
1.學生在段落結構方面的評鑑力令人滿意,但在文法方面的評鑑力較弱。
2.經過同儕評論後,學生所改寫成的完稿比初稿好,在結構及文法方面之錯誤都顯著減少。
3.學生的完稿中改進的部分,有大半與同儕建議有關,表示學生相當重視也採納同儕對於結構及文法所提出的建
議。
4.同儕評論的效益,部分可延續到下一篇作文;學生第二篇作文的初稿在結構方面比第一篇的初稿顯著進步,與
第一篇作文的完稿品質相近。但在文法方面,同儕評論的效益並未延續到下一篇作文;學生的第二篇作文中的文
法錯誤反而比第一篇多。
5.學生對同儕評論的效益大致滿意。大多數同學認為同儕評論可增加他們對說明文段落結構的理解,提昇他們的
作文能力及興趣。
最後本論文根據研究結果提出建議,鼓勵老師在英文寫作課中加入同儕評論活動,同時也建議老師將英文寫作的
教學重點放在文章段落結構的教授上,以提昇學生之學習效果。
The aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of peer evaluation on EFL
writing. The study attempts to examine whether high school EFL students have the ability to
function as editors of their peers'' essays in a process-oriented approach to writing. It also aims
to explore whether students implement peer feedback when revising their preliminary drafts, and
whether the revisions inspired by peers help to improve students'' subsequent writing of the same
topic and on a new topic. Furthermore, through the returned questionnaires, the study tries to
reveal how students react to peer evaluation activity in general.
The subjects of this study were 40 first-year vocational high school students in Kaohsiung.
The students received explicit instruction of writing an expository paragraph, and then were asked
to write their first assignment at home. Later, the first and second drafts of the first writing
task were reviewed by other classmates. The participants were told to revise their preliminary
drafts by implementing their peers'' suggestions. After they handed in the final draft, they were
required to answer a questionnaire in writing. Two weeks after they finished the final draft of
the first assignment, they were asked to write another expository paragraph on a new topic. The
major instruments used in the study were an evaluation sheet for peer review and a questionnaire.
The evaluation sheet was used repetitively as a guideline in every stage of the teaching procedure,
from teacher''s instruction to students'' writing, and then to peer evaluation activity.
The major findings were summarized as follows:
(1) The students showed satisfactory ability to evaluate their classmates'' writing at
the discourse level, but they were less competent in the assessment of grammatical
problems.
(2) After peer evaluation, students’ final drafts of the first writing task improved, with
fewer discourse-level weaknesses and grammatical errors.
(3) More than half of students'' improvements at both the discourse and the grammar
levels in the final drafts were associated with peers'' suggestions.
(4) The effectiveness of peer evaluation at the discourse level was carried over to the
subsequent writing on a new topic. The discourse-level quality of students’ writing
on a new topic was almost as good as that of their final drafts on the first topic.
However, the impact of peer review at the grammar level was not carried over to a
new topic. Students were found to make more grammatical errors in their writing
of the new topic.
(5) A great majority of students reacted positively to peer evaluation activity. They
have found peer evaluation a useful strategy in polishing their writing skill and
arousing their interest in English writing.
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher suggest that EFL high school English teachers
incorporate peer evaluation activity into English writing classes, accompanied with
carefully-designed teaching procedure and a specific evaluation sheet. It is also recommended that
teachers devote more of their time to the instruction at the content level than to grammar
correction, so that both the teacher and the students will find English writing classes more
fruitful and interesting.
page
Abstract i
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables vi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Motivation and Background 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose and Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 5
Definition of Terms. 6
Limitation of the Study 6
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
Students'' Ability to Evaluate Their Peers'' Writing 7
Students'' Implementation of Peers'' Feedback 10
Types of Revisions 14 Students'' Stances in Peer Review Activity 19
Effectiveness of Peer Evaluation 21
Students'' Perception of the Effectiveness of Peer Evaluation 24
Summary 27
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Subjects 29
Instruments 30
Procedure 32
Data Analysis 38
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
Students'' Ability to Evaluate Their Peers'' Writing 39
Improvement in the Final Draft 41
Correlation between Students'' Improvement and Peer Feedback 43
Improvement in the Writing on a New Topic. 45
Students'' Perception of Peer Evaluation 48
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Students'' Ability to Evaluate Their Peers'' Writing 54
Improvement in the Final Draft 56
Improvement in the Writing on a New Topic 58 Students'' Perceptions of Peer Evaluation 60 Conclusion 62
Suggestions for Future Research 63 Pedagogical Implication 64
REFERENCES 66
APPENDIX A 72
APPENDIX B 74
APPENDIX C 76
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1. The Number of Subjects in Each Group Whose Data Were Actually Analyzed 30
2. Training Syllabus 33
3. Mean Number of Congruent Judgments at the Discourse Level between
Teacher and Peer Evaluations of the First Draft Writing 39
4. Mean Number of Teacher-pinpointed Grammar Errors in the First Draft
Compared with Mean Number of Errors Correctly Underlined or Correctly
Coded by the Students 40
5. Mean Number of Weaknesses at the Discourse Level in the First Draft (A1) and
the Final (A3) Draft 42
6. Mean Number of Grammatical Errors in the First (A1) and the Final (A3)
Drafts Identified by the Teacher 42
7. Mean Number of Improvements at the Discourse Level in the Final Draft
in Comparison to Number of Peer-instigated Improvements 43
8. Total Number of Peer-pointed Grammar Errors in the First (A1) and the Second
(A2) Drafts versus That of Peer-instigated Revisions in the Second (A2) and
the Final (A3) Drafts. 44
9. Total Number of Weaknesses at the Discourse Level on the Second Topic
Writing (B1) in Comparison to That on the First Topic Writing (A1) 45
10. Mean Numbers of Weaknesses at the Discourse Level on the Second Topic
Writing (B1) and on the Final Draft (A3) 46
11. Mean Number of Grammatical Errors in the Second Topic Writing (B1) and
the First Draft Topic (A1) 47
12. Mean Number of Grammatical Errors in the Second Topic Writing (B1)
and the Final Draft (A3) 47
13. Students'' Perception of Peers'' Judgments at the Discourse Level 48
14. Students'' Perception of the Peers'' Judgments at the Grammar Level 49
15. Students'' Perception of Their Own Judgments at the Discourse Level 49
16. Students'' Perception of Their Own Judgments at the Grammar Level 50
17. Students'' Perception of the Helpfulness of Peers'' Discourse-level Suggestions 50
18. Students’ Perception of the Helpfulness of Peers'' Grammar-level Suggestions 51
REFERENCES
I. Chinese References
林茂松 (2000) 遠東高中英文作文 遠東圖書公司 19-67
黃素月,曾瑾玲 (2001) 英文寫作練習I 三民書局 5-73
謝國平 (1990) 高中英文作文 第二冊 (段的寫作) 東華書局 28-40
II. English References
Allaei, S., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural
collaboration. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28.
Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school (NCTE Research Rep. No. 21). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL
compositions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Beach, R. (1989). Showing students how to assess: Demonstrating techniques for
response in the writing conference. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response:
Theory, practice, and research (pp. 127-148). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Benesch, S. (1984). Improving peer response: collaboration between teachers and students.
Urbana, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED243 113.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in Writing. In Gregg, E. & Steinberg, E. (Eds.),
Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 51-72). N. J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.
Berg, E.C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision
types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional
writing. Research in the Teaching of English 14, 197-222.
Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual
knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction
(pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "Conversation of mankind".
College English, 46, 635-652.
Carson, J. & Nelson, G. (1994). Writing groups: cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing,3, 17-30.
Carson, J. & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response
group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 181-188.
Chiang, P. J. (1993). How to improve English composition teaching in Taiwan’s high
schools: a study of error types and learning strategies. Thesis (M.A.) distributed
by National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Cohen, A.D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In Wenden and Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 57-67.
Collins, A. & Gentner, D. (1980). A framework for a cognitive theory of writing. In
E. Gregg, & E. Steinberg, (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 51-72).
N. J. : L. Erlbaum Associates.
Connor, U. & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes:
how much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257- 276.
Cumming, A., & So, S. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: does approach to instruction or language of communication make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing 5,197-226
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.
Faigley, L. and Witte, S. (1984). Analyzing revision. College Composition and communication 32, 400-415
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). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent
self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315-337.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response
to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J.S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, &
practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and
Juggling Constraints. In E. Gregg, & E. Steinberg, (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in
Writing (pp. 31-50). N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
.
Gere, A. (1987) Writing groups: History, theory and implications. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gere, A., & Abbott, R. (1985). Talking about writing. The language of writing
groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362-386.
George, D. (1984). Working with peer groups in the composition classroom. College
Composition and Communication 35, 320-326.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the
teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback. Journal of Second
language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture''s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huff, R., & Kline, C. r. (1987). The Contemporary Writing Curriculum: Rehearsing,
Composing, and Valuing. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jacobs, G., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on Student
Writing: Taking the Middle Path. Journal of Second language Writing, 7,
307-317.
Karegianes, M., Pascarella, E, & Pflaum. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 73, 203-207.
Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4.
Krashen, S. (1987). Applications of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. In M. H. Long, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A Book of Readings. (pp. 33-43) Singapore: Harpen & Row.
Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 155-177.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1990b). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. The
CATESOL Journal, 5-19.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances,
functions, and content. Language Learning, 45,605-655.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the
students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.
Mangelsdorf, K. & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer
review task. Journal of Second language Writing, 1, 235-254.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision
activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28, 745-769.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: harnessing students’ communicative
power. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in Writing: empowering ESL
Students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
Mullaney, M., Letkeman T., & Nelson S.A. (Eds.) (2001). Writing in Action- a style
guide for Writing. Taipei: AMC Publishers.
Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing,7, 113-131.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1992a). An L2 writing group: Task and Social
dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1 , 171-193.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1992b). Writing Groups and the Less Proficient ESL
Student. TESOL Journal, 2 , 23-26.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer
comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity
between writers and readers. New York: Academic Press.
Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context. In C. M. Anson
(Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 209-230).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
Perl. S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English 13, 317-336.
Reid, J., & Powers, J. (1993). Extending the benefits of small-group collaboration to the ESL writer. TESOL Journal, 25-32.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 273-291.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and
Communication, 33, 148-156.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Tu, F. M. (1997). A comparison of the effects between self-revision and peer-revision
on college students'' writing. Thesis (M.A.) distributed by National Kaohsiung
Normal University.
Villamil, O. S. & Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom:
social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL
writing class. Journal of Second language Writing, 4 , 209-222.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top