跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.86) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/20 05:11
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:簡啟雯
研究生(外文):Chi-Wen Chien
論文名稱:線上同儕回饋對大學生英文寫作之效能研究
論文名稱(外文):Effects of Online Peer Response on EFL College Writing
指導教授:劉顯親劉顯親引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsien-Chin Liou
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
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:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:英文
論文頁數:164
中文關鍵詞:電腦輔助合作學習同儕回饋線上寫作部落閣
外文關鍵詞:computer-mediated collaborative learningPOWERpeer responseonline writingblogeffectiveness researcheffectiveness research
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:555
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:136
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:14
根據過程寫作理論(process writing theory)、合作學習理論(collaborative learning theory)、以及從第二外語的社會文化觀點(sociocultrual theory)而論,同儕回饋活動的意義與重要性已經成為熱門話題,因此近年來,越來越多的英文教師使用同儕回饋活動於作文教學中。傳統的同儕回饋多是以面對面的寫作小組方式進行,文獻指出同儕回饋對學生英文作文的學習有其正面的幫助。隨著網路普及,線上互評已成熟可行,但目前對此教學活動之研究較少,以致不容易了解線上同儕回饋的效能及實際情況。有學者認為線上互評和面對面進行有本質上差異,值得深入探討 (Breuch, 2004)。因此本研究利用近來相當受矚目的「部落格」技術,發展了一個結合文件檔案共享和網路聊天室功能的線上同儕寫作與編輯平台(POWER),並在該POWER平台上嵌入了一個線上中英文雙語檢索系統與搭配詞語檢索系統。在受試者接受了線上同儕回饋與使用工具後,我們探討線上同儕回饋對大學生英文寫作的影響。此外,對英文程度中等以上的大專學生而言,寫作英文時最需要的協助是增進寫作的正確性。過去的文獻顯示出,副詞連接詞和搭配詞語的使用往往是很多大學生在英文寫作時常常會發生的錯誤、遇到的問題。理論上,如同過去的研究所示,若透過同儕回饋以及線上寫作工具的輔助,學生在英文作文中副詞連接詞和搭配詞語的錯誤率可以降低,進而提升學生整體英文作文的品質。
所以我們的研究問題包括: (一) 受試者在進行線上同儕回饋時的溝通內容,要進一部探討評量者(reader)和受評者(writer)所抱持的立場;(二) 受試者是否會參考同儕的意見而對文章作修改;(三) 透過線上同儕回饋,受試者的英文作文程度是否提升,尤其是在副詞連接詞和搭配詞語方面的進步有多少;(四) 受試者對線上同儕回饋的態度與看法。17位大一外語系的學生,兩兩一組(其中一組三人),在POWER 平台上進行三回合的線上英文寫作與同儕回饋的活動。實驗進行前後,受試者均填寫一份問卷、一篇計時英文作文及關於副詞連接詞和搭配詞語的前測後測評量。為了更深入瞭解受試者線上同儕回饋的過程,我們更採樣四組受試者的線上聊天紀錄和其三回合寫作的原稿與完稿。
資料分析結果顯示如後。第一,受試者在進行線上同儕回饋時多專注於要討論的英文作文上,評量者的態度多較受評者為主動。第二,受試者相當倚賴同儕所給予的意見再進行文章的修改。第三,經過線上同儕回饋活動後,受試者無論在副詞連接詞和搭配詞語方面亦或是在整體英文寫作實力上,均有明顯的增進。最後,受試者對於線上同儕回饋的活動都持相當正面且肯定的看法。
本研究結果顯示,利用POWER進行線上同儕回饋不僅可以增進學習者英文寫作的正確度,同時也能提升學習者整體的英文寫作能力。此外,我們認為POWER系統自動記錄同儕回饋過程中的對話內容,有助於學習者做自我反省(to be reflective),更能夠讓教師了解並追蹤學生的學習狀況。未來研究應包含更多受試者並長期觀察學生學習情形,以進一步印證線上同儕回饋之效。最後,此研究也針對利用線上同儕回饋系統的應用,提出若干教學建議。
With the support of the process writing approach, collaborative learning theory, and sociocultural theory of second language learning, peer response activities have gained increasing attention and become a common feature of process-oriented writing classrooms. Traditionally, peer response has taken place in face-to-face writing groups. A critical review of some studies has indicated students’ positive perceptions of peer feedback and beneficial impact of peer response on students’ writings. With the widespread of Internet technology in students’ daily life, online peer response has become an option for writing teachers. Yet, few of the previous studies have explored what has happened in the process of online peer response. In addition, language teachers and intermediate learners in EFL settings, our target learners in this study, need help targeting at text-based accuracy. Adverbial connective and verb-noun collocaitonal usages in student writing have been noted by prior research as common errors on ESL and EFL learners and thus targeted for investigation in this study. Based on the blogging mechanism, a web-based platform, POWER (Peer Online Writing & Editing Room) was developed. POWER enables document sharing, co-editing, and online chat with the enhancement of a bilingual concordancer and a collocation retrieval program. With the help of peer response and online writing tools, L2 learners’ inaccurate use of connectors and collocations in English writing might decrease as past research suggested, and thus, heighten the overall quality of the writing.
The thesis study examines to which extent POWER can help EFL college students write better or more accurately. Based on a single group pretest-posttest research design with three cycles of drafting, with peer response and revising in pair-work as its instructional design, a test in a controlled format and a timed writing task were given before and after the three cycles. There was also an evaluation questionnaire at the end of the study. The online activities lasted about eight weeks. Seventeen college freshmen of English-majors participated. In addition to the learning product data of the tests, learning process data included students’ drafts and revised versions, and the discussion logs out of a sample of four representative peer dyads. The results pointed to learners’ positive attitudes toward conducting peer response on POWER for revision. Learners’ improvement in the usages of connectors and collocation as well as in overall writing quality was also revealed. Moreover, it was found that during peer response sessions, students concentrated very much on their writing tasks since most of their online utterances were on task-related talk. Of these task-related utterances, a relatively high percentage was devoted to the form of writing, indicating that grammatical accuracy was what concerned these EFL student writers most. The findings further showed that students were able to make use of various language functions to negotiate with their partners while doing online peer response. When serving as reviewers, compared to writers, they initiated more idea units and tended to assume a more active role, dominating the interaction during online peer response. Additionally, the results reported that most students revised mainly according to the feedback they received from peers. This outcome coincided with the usefulness of peer comments as confirmed in the Evaluation Questionnaire.
Through the process data from four sampled pairs, idiosyncratic features of each dyad indicated that some pairs were highly collaborative. Some yet led imbalanced interaction by depending a lot on the partner. Some treated each other with respect, but still kept self-independency. In spite of distinctive characteristics, all the four peer dyads were found cooperative and tried their best to help each other write better.
The results of the current study showed that online peer response could foster learners’ ability of English writing. Moreover, it is suggested that with explicit instruction and prior preparation for online peer collaboration, learners were capable of using various language functions to scaffold their peers or to complement each other during online peer response sessions. For teaching implications, it is recommended that teachers make good use of the recording function of the discussion logs to track learners’ accountability in the online environment as well as equip themselves with basic computer and electronic literacy for the exploitation of the online peer response platform. With regard to directions for future refinements, more participants with heterogeneous backgrounds should be included and longer-term studies are suggested to verify the effects of online peer response on English writing.
Page
中文摘要……………………………………………………………...………………..i
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………..iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………… vii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………..……...ix
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………...…....xi
CHARPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………..3
1.3 Definition of Peer Response……………………………………………...4
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………5
2.2 Theoretical Background………………………………………………….5
2.2.1 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development……………………….5
2.2.2 Collaborative Learning Theory…………………………….............7
2.2.3 Process Writing…………………………………………………….8
2.2.4 Summary of the Theoretical Justifications of Peer Response……...9
2.3 Empirical Studies on Peer Response……………………………………..9
2.3.1 Empirical Studies on the Social Dimension of Peer Response Groups……………………………………………………..…......10
2.3.2 Empirical Studies on the Task Dimension (the Effectiveness) of Peer Response Groups………………………………………..…..16
2.3.3 Empirical Studies on Online Peer Response Groups……………..19
2.3.4 The Importance of the Training Process for Peer Response
Groups………………………………………………………..…..21
2.4 Two Typical L2 Learners’ Linguistic Weaknesses in Writing……...… ..23
2.4.1 Adverbial Connectors in Written English…………………………24
2.4.1.1 Empirical Studies on the Connector Usage of ESL and
EFL Writers………………………………………………..24
2.4.1.2 Summary on Connector Usage of ESL and EFL Learners’
Written Data.………………………………………………27
2.4.2 Collocations in Written English…………………….…………….28
2.4.2.1 Empirical Studies on English Collocations of ESL and EFL Writing Contexts…..…………………………………..…29
2.4.2.2 Summary on Collocations of ESL and EFL Learners’
Written Data…………………………………………...…32
2.5 CALL Tools for Writing………………………………………………...33
2.5.1 A Platform for Local Area Network.……………………..……...34
2.5.2 A Wiki-inspired Web Space……………………….………….....36
2.5.3 Concordancing…………………………………………………..37
2.6 Summary & Research Questions……………………………………….42
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1Overview………………………………………………………………...45
3.2 Participants………………………………………………….……...…...45
3.3 Instruments…..…………………………………………………….……46
3.4 Instructional Context and Design……………………………………….47
3.4.1 An Online Writing & Editing Platform--- POWER……………….47
3.4.2 Materials & Task Design……………………………………….....50
3.5 Procedure………….…………………………………………………….52
3.6 Data Collection………………………………………………………….54
3.7 Data Analysis…………………………………………………................55
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………58
4.2 Results……………………………………………………………………59
4.2.1 Students’ Perception Data………………………………………….59
4.2.1.1 Background Questionnaire………………………………...59
4.2.1.2 Evaluation Questionnaire………………………………….61
4.2.2 Students’ Learning Product Data……………………………….…..65
4.2.2.1 Findings of Pretest & Posttest……………………….…….65
4.2.2.2 Comparison of Writing Performance in Diagnostic
Writing & Post-project Writing………………………. …..67
4.2.3 Representative Sampled Students’ Learning Process Data……...…69
4.2.3.1 Findings of Sampled Peer Dyads’ Discussion Logs……….70
4.2.3.2 Findings of Sampled Peer Dyads’ First Draft and Revised Drafts…...………………………………………………….76
4.2.3.3 Idiosyncratic Features of Sampled Peer Dyads……………83
4.2.4 Summarized Findings…………………………………..…………104
4.3 Discussion…………………………………………………………..…105
4.3.1 The Negotiation Types between Online Peer Response Pairs…….105
4.3.2 The Applicability of Online Peer Feedback…………………........107
4.3.3 The Impact of Online Peer Response on EFL Students’ Writing…111
4.3.4 Students’ Perceptions about Online Peer Response………………112
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Overview………………………………………………………………115
5.2 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………….116
5.3 Directions for Further Research……………………………………….117
5.4 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………117

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...120

APPENDICES
Appendix A Consent Form……………………………………………………....128
Appendix B The Pretest…………………………………………………………129
Appendix C The Posttest……………………………………….………………..131
Appendix D The Background Questionnaire……………………………………133
Appendix E The Evaluation Questionnaire……………………………………...135
Appendix F The Know-how of TOTALrecall, Tango, and POWOER………......138
Appendix G The Introduction of TOTALrecall……………….…………………140
Appendix H The Introduction of Tango………………………………………....141
Appendix I Handout (Adverbial Connectors & TOTALrecall)……...…….…...142
Appendix J Handout (VN Collocation & Tango)………………….…………...146
Appendix K The Introduction of POWER…………………….………………...148
Appendix L Peer Response Prompts………………………………………….....149
Appendix M The Coding Scheme for Content of Talk………………………….150
Appendix N The Coding Scheme for Functions of Talk……….………………..151
Appendix O The Coding Scheme for Revisions……………………….………..153
Appendix P A Sample of a Complete Session of Two Students’ Online Talk…..155
Appendix R Results of the Background Questionnaire………………………….158
Appendix S Results of the Evaluation Questionnaire…………………………...159
Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. (1998). The use of adverbial connectors in advanced
Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp. 80-93). London: Longman.

Baker, M. (November 12, 1995). Computer-assisted instruction for EFL college composition. Paper presented at the 4th Annual ETA Conference, Kaoshiung, Taiwan. Taipei: Crane.

Basturkmen, H. (2002). Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 233-242.

Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI combinatory dictionary of
English: A guide to word combination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision
types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.

Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in
student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165-182.

Breuch, L. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: teaching and learning about writing in online environments. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635-652.

Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.

Carson, J. & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of second language writing, 5(1), 1-19.

Chafe, W. L. (1980). The pear stories. Cognitive, cultural, a d linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2004). The explicit teaching of verb-noun collocation for Taiwan college learners with the help of CALL. The Proceedings of 2004 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 15-26). Taipei Crane.

Chang, J. S. (2004). The role of NLP in CALL--Project CANDLE 12 months later.
Proceedings of ELT and E-learning in an Electronic Age: Issues and Alternatives. Tamkang University, May 28-29.

Chen, P. C. (2002). A corpus-based study of the collocational errors in the writings of
the EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei. June.

Cheng, Y. S. (2004). EFL students’ writing anxiety: sources and implications. English
Teaching of Learning, 29(2), 41-62.

Chou. M. C. (1998). How peer negotiations shape revisions. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 349-359). Taipei: Crane.

Chou, M. C. (2003). Peer negotiations in an EFL writing classroom. The Proceedings of 2003 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 90-107). Taipei: Crane.

Connor, U. M., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes:
How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3),
257-276.

Conzett, J. (2000). Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. In Lewis, M. (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 70-86). London: Language Teaching Publications.

Crewe, W. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44(4), 316-325.

Daedalus Inc. (1989). Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment. Austin, TX: The Daedalus Group.
de Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484-496.
DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 53(3), 263-272.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf
& G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning (pp.
33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.

Emig, J. (1971). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.

Faigley, L. L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 400-414.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 31(4), 365-387.

Forman, E., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education:
the cognitive values of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.) Culture, communication and cognition (pp. 323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fox, R. (1980). Treatment of writing apprehension and its effect on composition.
Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 39-49.

Gere, A. (1987). Writing groups: history, theory, and implications. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.

Gitsaki, C. (1996). The development of ESL collocational knowledge. Unpublished
Doctorial dissertation, Center of Language Teaching and Research, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.

Heift, T., & Caws, C. (2000). Peer feedback in synchronous writing environments: A
case study in French. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3). Retrieved Apr. 23,
2005, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/c01.html

Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing E-mail and synchronous conferencing in online
peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26-60.

Huang, S.Y. (1999). EFL students’ use of ideas by peers during prewriting discussions conducted on networked computers. The Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 333-341). Taipei: Crane.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
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(3), 307-317.
Jacobs, H., Zingraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., & Hughey, J.B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Jian, H. L. (2003). Writing with Wiki – experiences of teaching English composition
through web-assisted collaboration. Proceedings of APAMALL 2003 and ROCMELIA (pp. 251-261). Taipei: Crane.

Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with
native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html

Lee, S. S. (2001). A case study of peer review for university-level undergraduate
writing students in Taiwan. Unpublished MATEFL thesis, National Tsing-Hua
University, Hsin-Chu. June.

Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes.
CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-7.

Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further development in lexical approach.
London: Language Teaching Publications.

Lin, C. C. (2003). Learning collocations in a bilingual corpus. The Proceedings of
2003 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistic (pp. 250-256). Taipei: Crane.

Liu, C. P. (1999). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The
proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.
483-494). Taipei: Crane.

Liu, C. P. (2000). A study of strategy use in producing lexical collocations. Selected
Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.
481-492). Taipei: Crane.

Liu, L. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun
miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Tamkang University, Taipei, January.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G.. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing
Classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances,
functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.

Lorenz, G. R. (1999). Adjective intensification-learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.

Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a
peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235-254.

Mendon�岬, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.

Min, H. T. (2003). Why Peer Comments Fail. English Teaching and Learning, 27(3),
85-103.

Mulder I. & Swaak J. (2002). Assessing group learning and shared understanding in
technology-mediated interaction. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 35-47. Retrieved Apr. 23, 2005, from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2002/mulder.html

Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. D. (1992). Lexical phrase and language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge Press.

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social
dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171-193.

Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer
comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.

Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in
peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.

Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and
some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223-242.

Norton Textra Connect. (1996). Ann Arbor Software. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: the case of the text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shei, C. C., & Pain, H. (2000). An ESL writer’s collocational aid. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 167-182.

Stanley, D. (1992). Couching student writers to be effective peers. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1(3), 217-234.

Sullivan, N. (1993). Teaching on a computer network. TESOL Journal, 3(1), 34-35.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two EFL writing environments: A computer-assisted and traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491-501.

Sze, C. (2002). A case study of the revision process of a reluctant ESL student writer. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 21-36.

Taylor, B. (1981). Content and written form: A two-year street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 5-13.

Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction.
System, 29, 91-102.

Villamil, O. & de Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom:
social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. The Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, M. J. (2004). A study on online peer feedback. English Teaching and Learning,
29(2), 63-77.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and
practice. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 470-481.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching:
concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wu. W. S. (1996). Lexical collocations: One way to make passive vocabulary active.
Paper from the eleventh conference on English Teaching and learning in the
Republic of China (pp. 461-480). Taipei: Crane.

Wu, J. C., Yeh, K. C., Chuang, T. C., Shei, W. C., & Chang, J. S. (2003). TOTALrecall: A bilingual concordance for computer assisted translation and language learning. Proceedings of the 41st Association of Computational Linguistics Conference, Sappora, Japan, July 7-13.

Yu, Y. T. (2004). Computerized feedback and bilingual concordancer for EFL college students’ writing. Unpublished MATEFL thesis, National Tsing-Hua
University, Hsin-Chu. June.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209.

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
無相關期刊