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:2025/02/07 23:08
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:周麗芳
研究生(外文):Li-fang Zhou
論文名稱:英文寫作背後之故事:高中生在三種後設認知學習策略訓練之效益研究
論文名稱(外文):THE STORY BEHIND ENGLISH WRITING: EFFECTS OF THREE METACOGNITIVE LEARNING STRATEGY TRAINING ON EFL SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
指導教授:張玉玲張玉玲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ye-ling Chang
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:2006
畢業學年度:95
語文別:英文
論文頁數:136
中文關鍵詞:後設認知
外文關鍵詞:Metacognitive
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:799
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:311
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:13
論文名稱:英文寫作背後的故事:高中生在三種後設認知學習策略訓練之效益研究
校所組別:國立高雄師範大學英語學系教學碩士班
畢業時間:九十五學年度第一學期
指導教授:張玉玲 博士
研究生 :周麗芳

論文摘要:
  本研究主旨在探討後設認知學習策略訓練對高中生英文寫作之效益。此研究檢驗後設認知學習策略訓練對於高中生英文寫作態度與檢驗高中生對於本研究後設認知學習策略訓練的反應。此外,本研究探討後設認知學習策略對於受試者在後設認知與英文寫作能力上之影響程度。
  本研究以國立花蓮女子高級中學八十六位高一學生為研究對象。在為期十二週的後設認知學習策略訓練應用在寫作教學課程中,該八十六位學生必須學習計劃策略、自我監控策略和自我評估三種後設認知學習策略。在後設認知學習訓練課程前後,所有學生必須接受前測及後測問卷調查,其目的在檢視學生的英文寫作態度、後設認知以及對於後設認知訓練課程的反應。此外,學生還必須接受前測、後測寫作測驗。在資料分析上,除了收集、統計及量化分析前測及後測五點式問卷與兩次作文分數之外,並針對在後測問卷中詢問學生對於後設認知的建議和最大收穫的開放性問題作質化分析。
  本研究的主要發現摘述如下:
一. 後設認知學習策略訓練正向加強學生對於寫作的態度。學生表達使用後設認知學習策略來計劃、監控和評估寫作能夠培養寫作能力。
二. 後設認知學習策略訓練正向加強學生對於寫作過程的後設認知。學生較能覺察寫作認知過程。此外,學生學會如何使用策略完成寫作任務以及何時利用策略解決不同情境下的問題。
三. 後設認知學習策略訓練增進學生整體的作文能力以及改善學生在內容、組織、字彙、文法、標點及大小寫五方面的寫作表現。
四. 學生對於後設認知學習策略訓練應用在寫作教學中持肯定看法。
  根據以上研究結果,英文寫作教師可以將後設認知學習策略訓練融入英文寫作教學中。透過後設認知學習策略訓練,學生在寫作過程與策略使用方面的後設認知將被提昇、加強。如此一來,學生能培養計劃、自我監控和自我評估的能力,進而成為積極獨立的寫作高手。
ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of the metacognitive learning strategy training (MLST) on English writing of senior high school students. Specifically, the influence of the MLST program on the students’ attitudes toward English writing and the responses to the MLST program were investigated. Moreover, to what extent the MLST program would influence the subjects’ metacognitive awareness and English writing performance was further explored.
The subjects of this study are 86 tenth-grade senior high school students in Hualien Girls’ Senior High School. During a twelve-week MLST program in writing instruction, all of the subjects had to learn the three metacognitive learning strategies-the planning strategy, the self-monitoring strategy and the self-evaluating strategy. Before and after the MLST program, the subjects were asked to answer the pre-study and post-study questionnaires to investigate their attitudes toward English writing, the growth of their metacognitive awareness and their responses to the MLST program. In addition, the subjects were asked to write the pre-study and post-study writing worksheets. In data analysis, the results of five-point scale questions and the scores of the two writing worksheets were collected, computed and analyzed quantitatively. In addition, the students’ suggestions for the MLST program and responses to the best gains in the MLST program in the open-ended questions of the post-study questionnaires were analyzed qualitatively.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data analyses, the findings of the present study are summarized as follows.
1. The students’ attitudes towards English writing were positively reinforced after the MLST program. The students expressed they became competent in English writing after they learned how to use metacognitive learning strategies to plan, monitor and evaluate their writing in the MLST program.
2. The students’ metacognitive awareness of writing processes was positively reinforced after the MLST program. The students became more aware of their cognition of the knowledge about writing processes. They learned how to use strategies to accomplish writing and when they could use strategies to solve their problems under different situations.
3. The MLST program helped improve the students’ overall writing performance and the five categories of writing performance in content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics.
4. The students held positive attitudes toward the MLST program in writing instruction.
Based on the study findings, it is suggested that English writing teachers should integrate the MLST program into their English writing instruction. Through the MLST program, students’ metacognitive awareness of writing processes and strategy using will be enhanced and reinforced. In this way, students can develop the ability of planning, self-monitoring and self-evaluating their writing and become active and independent writers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background and Motivation 1
Purposes of the Study 5
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 6
Limitations of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 7

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
The Nature of Writing 9
Writing Products and Writing Processes 9
Writer’s Block 15
Writing Strategies 18
Metacognition and Writing 22
Metacognition 23
Metacognition and Writing 26
Metacognitive Awareness Instruction 28
Metacognitive Learning Strategy Training 31
Definition and Practice 31
Selected Metacognitive Learning Strategies 34
The Planning Strategy 34
The Self-monitoring Strategy 36
The Self-evaluating Strategy 39
Metacognitive Awareness Assessments: What, How and When 41

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Subjects 45
Instruments 46
The Pre-study English Writing Worksheet 46
The Post-study English Writing Worksheet 47
Questionnaires 48
A Think-aloud Interview Form 50
Procedures of Writing Mapping with Self-monitoring Checklists 51
Pre-writing Worksheets with Self-monitoring Checklists 51
Six Writing Worksheets with Self-monitoring Checklists 51
Reviewing and Editing Worksheets 51
Self-evaluating Worksheets 52
Study Procedures 52
Data Analysis 55
A Quantitative Analysis 55
A Qualitative Analysis 56

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Comparison of the Student Responses to English Writing 57
Comparison of the Students’ Attitudes Toward English Writing 58
Comparison of the Student Responses to the Five Categories in English Writing Performance Before and After the MLST Program 61

Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness of English Writing Processes 63
Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness in Declarative Knowledge of English Writing Processes Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 63
Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness in Procedural Knowledge of English Writing Processes Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 65
Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness in Conditional Knowledge of English Writing Processes Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 67
Comparison of the Students’ English Writing Performance 68
Comparison of the Students’ Overall English Writing Performance Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 69
Comparison of the Five Categories in the Students’ English Writing Performance Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 70
The Student Responses to the MLST Program 72
Student Responses to the Metacognitive Learning Strategy Training 73
Student Responses to the Three Metacognitive Learning Strategies 75
Ranking of the Metacognitive Learning Strategies the Students Like Most 77
Student Responses to the Peer-evaluation Activity and the Writing Topics 80
Students’ Suggestions for the MLST Program 83
Student Responses to the Best Gains in the MLST Program 87

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Conclusions 92
Implications 95
Suggestions 96
REFERENCES 98
Appendix A-1: The Pre-study English Writing Worksheet 112
Appendix A-2: The Post-study English Writing Worksheet 113
Appendix A-3: A Think-aloud Interview Form 114
Appendix A-4: Procedures of Writing Mapping 115
Appendix A-5: Pre-writing Worksheet 116
Appendix A-6: A Reviewing and Editing Worksheet 118
Appendix A-7: A Self-evaluating Worksheet 119
Appendix B-1: A Pre-study Questionnaire on the Students’ Metacognitive
Awareness and Attitudes Toward English Writing 120
Appendix B-2: A Post-study Questionnaire on the Students’ Metacognitive
Awareness, Attitudes Toward English Writing and Responses Toward the MLST Program 123
Appendix C-1: An ESL Composition Profile 127
Appendix C-2: A Typology of Learning Strategy 128
Appendix D-1: Students’ Suggestions in Chinese for the MLST Program 129
Appendix D-2: Students’ Responses in Chinese to the Best Gains in the
MLST Program 132
Appendix E-1: Reliability Analysis of the Pre-study Questionnaire 135
Appendix E-2: Reliability Analysis of the Post-study Questionnaire 136

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. A Comparison of the Student Responses to English Writing Before and After the MLST Program 59

2. A Comparison of the Student Responses to the Five Categories of English Writing Performance Before and After the MLST Program 61
3. A Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness in Declarative Knowledge of English Writing Processes Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 64
4. A Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness in Procedural Knowledge of English Writing Processes Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 66
5. A Comparison of the Students’ Metacognitive Awareness in Conditional Knowledge of English Writing Processes Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 68
6. A Comparison of the Students’ Overall Writing Performance Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 69
7. A Comparison of the Five Categories of the Students’ English Writing Performance Between the Pre-study and the Post-study 71
8. Student Responses to the Three Metacognitive Learning Strategy Training Techniques in the MLST Program 73
9. Student Responses to the Three Metacognitive Learning Strategies in the MLST Program 75


10. A Ranking of the Metacognitive Learning Strategies the Students Like Most 77
11. Student Responses to the Peer-evaluation and the Writing Topics in the MLST Program 81
12. Students’ Suggestions for the MLST Program 83
13. Student Responses to the Best Gains in the MLST Program 87




















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. The model of the writing process 2
2. The cycle of engagement and reflection in writing 14
3. A planning think sheet 29
4. The capacity to take control over learning 37
5. A flow chart of the study procedures 53
REFERENCES

Abbas, M. S. (2002). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing (3rd ed.). Iran: Rahnama.
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6, 14-29.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In D, Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Academic Press.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bialystok, E. & Ryan, E. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. Mackinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance, 1, 207-252. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Blanche, P (1988). Self-assessment of foreign-language skills: implications for teachers and researchers. RELC Journal, 19, 75-93.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp.65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A. & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman, (Eds), Handbook of child psychology: cognitive development, 3,177-266. New York: Wiley.
Byrne, D. (1967). Progressive picture compositions. Hong Kong: Longman.
Calderonello, A. H. & Edwards, B. L. (1986). Roughdrafts: The process of writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carson, J., & Leki, I. (1993). Reading in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-83). Englewood Cliffs, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., O’Malley, L. K, & Impink-Hernandez, M. (1987). A study of learning strategies in foreign language instruction: First year report. Rosslyn: Interstate Research Associates.
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers and researchers. New York: Newbury House.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Costa, A. L. & Kallick, B. (2004). Assessment strategies for self-directed learning. California: Corwin Press.
Cram, B. (1995). Self-assessment: from theory to practice. Developing a workshop guide for teachers. In G. Brindley (Ed.), Language Assessment in Action (pp. 271-306). Sydney: Macquarie University, NCELTR.
De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S.(1998). The contribution of executive control to the revisingby students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448-460.
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders (Research Report No. 13). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Englert, C., & Mariage, T. (1991). Shared understandings: Structuring the writing experience through dialogue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 330-342.
Englert, C., Raphael, T., & Anderson, L. (1992). Socially-mediated instruction: Improving students’ knowledge and talk about writing. Elementary School Journal, 92, 411-447.
Esch, E. (1997). Learner training for autonomous language learning. In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 164-176). London: Longman.
Ferretti, R., MacArthur, C., & Dowdy, N. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694-702.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., Mackinnon, G. E., & Waller, T.G. (1985). Metacognition, cognition, and human performance. New York: Academic Press.
Flavel, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavel, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura, & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Alphen a.d. Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Flavel, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 10, 906-911.
Flavel, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W.P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.
Flower, L. S. (1989). Problem-solving strategies for writing. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39, 449-461.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning through portfolios, TESOL Journal, 5(3), 12-14.
Gourgey, A. F. (2001). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 17-32). Boston: Kluwer.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223-234.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56, 201-214.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Assessment and intervention in overcoming writing difficulties: An illustration from the self-Regulated strategy development model. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 253-264.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-V. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322-334.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky J., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.
Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), 101-117.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigelutch (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, 2, 115-140. Mahlway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harris, K. R. & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disabled students’ composition skills: Self-control strategy training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27-36.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacogntion in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 33-68). Boston: Kluwer.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113.
Higgins, L., Flower, L. S., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together? The role of critical reflection in student collaboration. Written Communcation, 9 (1), 48-84.
Hughey, J. B., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Jacobs, H. L. (1983). Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques. Rowley: Newbury House.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading. Issues in definition, mearsurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ 3(1).
Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin (Eds.), Animal mind-human mind (pp. 201-224). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications: Language teaching methodology series. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-49). Cambridge: The University of Cambridge.
Kronick. D. (1988). New approaches to learning diabilities: Cognitive, metacognitive and holistic. Philadelphia: Grune & Stratton.
Lannon, J. M. (1995) The writing process. A concise rhetoric. New York: HarperCollins College.
Lewis, J. (1990). Self-assessment in the classroom: a case study. In G. Brindley (Ed.) The second language curriculum in action (pp. 187-213). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Reasearch.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Lor, W. (1998). Studying the first-year students’ experience of writing their reflection journals with the use of a web-based system. MA dissertation. University of Hong Kong.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S., Molloy, D., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Integration of strategy instruction into a whole language classroom: A case study. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 11, 168-176.
McDonough, S. (1999). Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32, 1-18.
McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2000). Literacy’s beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McNamara, M.J. & Deane, D. (1995). Self-assessment activities: Toward autonomy in language learning. TESOL Journal, 5 (3), 17-21.
Miller, R. R., Webb, S. S., & Horner, M. W. (2001). The writers’ harbrace handbook. Orlando: Harcourt.
Montague, M., & Leavell, A. (1994). Improving the narrative writing of students with learning diabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 21-33.
Murayama, I. (1996). The status of strategies in learning: A brief history of changes in researchers’ views. Learning Learning: FALT Learner Development N-SIG Forum, 2 (3), 7-12.
Nelson, R., Smith, D., & Dodd, J. (1992). The effects of teaching a summary skills strategy to students identified as learning disabled on their comprehension of science text. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 228-243.
Nunan, D. (1996). Towards autonomous learning: some theoretical, empirical and practical issues. In R. Pemberton et al. (Eds), Taking Control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 192-203). London: Longman.
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 150-63). London: Longman.
O’ Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: rationale and applications, Language Testing, 6, 1-13.
Oscarson, M. (1997). Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds), Language testing and assessment, Encyclopedia of language and education, (17, 175-187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L. & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assess the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/ EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning(SILL), System, 23 (1),1-23.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8 (3), 293-316.
Paris, S. G. & Myers, M. (1983). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13 (1), 1-22.
Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfect, T. J & Schwartz, B. L. (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petrosky, R. A. & Bartholomae, D. (1986). The teaching of writing. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Pintrich. P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 41 (4), 219-225.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled writers do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Raphael, T., Englert, C., & Kirschner, B. (1989). Acquisition of expository writing skills. In J. Mason & S. Murphy (Eds.), Reading/ writing connection: An instructional priority in elementary schools (pp. 261-290). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Richards, J. C., Platt J., & Platt, H. (1997). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Pearson Education.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidst, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Pearson Education.
Robinson, T. H. (1986). Active writing. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Rolfe, T. (1990). Self- and peer-assessment in the ESL curriculum. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum in Action, (pp.163-186). Sydney: Macquarie University, National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Rose, M. (1984). Writer’s block: The cognitive dimension. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenshine, S. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 64 (4), 479-530.
Ryan, S. (1997). Preparing learners for independence: resources beyond the classroom. In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 215-224). London: Longman.
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12, 3-17.
Salmon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomena. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142.
Saye, J., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27 (4), 472-504.
Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Writen composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.778-803). New York: Macmillan.
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3-16). Boston: Kluwer.
Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking foreign language writing. US: Heinle & Heinle.
Sexton, R. J., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1998). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on essay writing and attributions of students with learning disabilities in a process writing setting. Exceptional Children, 64, 295-311.
Sharples, M. (1999). How we write: Writing as creative design. New York: Routledge.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing- Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sitko, B.M. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93-115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, F. (1982). Writing and the Writer.. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smolen, L., Newman, C., Wathen, T. & Lee, D. (1995). Developing student self-assessment strategies. TESOL Journal, 5 (3), 22-27.
Swartz, C. W., deKruif, R. E. L., & Wakely, M. B. (1998). The Index of Metacognitive Awareness about Writing. Unpublished Instrument. The Center for the study of Development and Learning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Topping. K. (2001). Thinking reading writing: A practical guide to paired learning with peers, parents and volunteers. New York: Continuum.
Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290-305.
Troia, G., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65, 215-252.
Tsou, M. (2005). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy instruction in English writing in senior high school. Master thesis. Taiwan: National Chengchi University.
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: a case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Welch (1992). The PLEASE strategy: A metacognitive learning strategy for improving the paragraph writing of students with mild learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 119-128.
Wenden, A. L (1983). Literature review: the process of intervention. Language Learning, 33, 103-21.
Wenden, A. L. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learner. Language Learning, 37(4), 573-597.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall International.
Wey, S. C., (1998). The effects of goal orientations, metacognition, self-efficacy and effort on writing achievement. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Southern California, California.
White, R., & V. Arndt (1991). Process writing. Harlow: Longman.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (1999). The role of metacognitive theory in L2 writing: Speculations and suggestions. In The selected papers of the Eighth international Symposium on English teaching (pp. 181-192). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2000). Composition instruction: A metacognitive approach. In The Selected Papers of the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 107-117). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English-majored university student writers. In The selected papers of the Tenth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 515-527). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002a). Skilled writers’ metacognitive conditional knowledge and self-Regulation. In the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (pp. 515-527). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002b). A Metacognitive approach to the problem of incoherence in EFL Learners’ writing. In The selected papers of the Eleventh international symposium on English teaching (pp. 599-610). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002c). The differences between L2 mature and immature writers: A metacognitive approach. In the proceedings of the Twentieth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (pp. 579-609). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L, & Joe, S. G. (2003). The differences between L2 mature and immature writers: A metacognitive approach. In The proceedings of the Twentieth conference on English teaching and learning in the republic of China, (pp. 597-609). Taipei: Crane.
Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: Wat we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67-76.
Zamel, V. (1983a). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.
Zamel, V. (1983b). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top