臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

長期以來，傳統的文法教學因抹煞兒童實際溝通時的創造力和學習動機而飽受批評。因此，專家學者們建議現代的語言教師應幫助初學者經由統整且真實的語言情境中建構文法概念；而「寫作」即為一種文法習得的有效途徑，尤其在校訂的階段。本研究主要的目的旨在探討外語學習兒童經由情境化的引導式寫作練習來學習英語文法的成效，以及他們對於兩種不同的文章修訂方式—同儕互評和教師評改—的態度與看法。此外，英語學習經驗較長的學生和初學者對於這兩種評改方式的看法在文中也會進行比較和分析。
本兼具質化與量化之研究主要包含兩個階段：第一階段為引導式寫作教學，第二階段為問卷調查。研究對象為五十四位高雄市一所國民小學不同英語程度的六年級學生，而問卷內容則主要為探究這些學生對於情境化文法教學、同儕互評、教師評改和修訂文章等活動的態度與看法。經由分析，本研究主要的發現摘要如下：
1. 英語學習兒童普遍認為經由情境化寫作來學習文法，和在修改文章時接受同學與老師的評論都是有用且有趣的。
2. 相較於同儕互評，學生們明顯比較喜歡教師評改的方式。但即使如此，還是有二十三名學生表示肯定同儕互評的效益，並在和同學互相評改文章的過程中體驗到合作學習的樂趣。
3. 學生們的英語學習經驗並不影響他們對於評改方式的想法；亦即，學習經驗較長的學生和初學者對於兩種評改方式的態度及看法是相當雷同的。
4. 學生們對於兩種評改方式的態度也影響了他們對於同學和教師建議的採納情形。普遍而言，他們在修改文章時採納較多老師提出的建議與評論。
5. 在寫作過程中，修改和訂正文章的階段的確幫助學生們學習到了簡單的文法概念。而在本研究中，教師評改對於學生的文法學習是較有幫助的。
本研究的發現可當作英語教師針對兒童設計文法和寫作課程時的參考，期望未來即使是初學者也能在享受寫作的樂趣之餘，同時能建構基本的文法知識。

The traditional grammar instruction has long been attacked for jeopardizing children's creation and motivation for functional communication. Therefore, it is strongly emphasized that modern language teachers shall help young learners frame their grammatical concepts through integral and authentic contexts. Writing is widely recognized as an effective medium of grammar acquisition, especially the process of editing. The main purposes of this study was to explore the effect of young EFL learners’grammar acquisition through contextualized guided-writing exercises and their attitudes toward two different styles of editing—peer review and teacher review. Additionally, more experienced learners’and beginners’perceptions of each style were also compared and analyzed.
This qualitative and quantitative study included both a guided-writing instruction and a questionnaire survey. A total sample of 54 students of different English proficiency levels were selected from the sixth grade at a municipal elementary school in Kaohsiung City. The survey was used to collect the data to understand the subjects’attitudes toward contextualized grammar instruction, peer and teacher review, as well as revision. The findings are summarized as follows:
1. Young EFL learners commonly agreed that acquiring simple sentence structures through contextualized writing exercises and receiving feedback from their peers and teachers while editing their writings are useful and interesting.
2. The learners favored teacher review significantly more than peer review; even so, there were still 23 subjects acknowledged the benefits of peer review and enjoyed the sense of collaboration while editing writings with their peers.
3. The subjects' English learning experiences did not have much influence on their perceptions of the two feedback styles; i.e., more experienced learners had similar attitudes with beginners.
4. The subjects’different attitudes toward teacher feedback and peer feedback affected their incorporation of the comments. They commonly incorporated much more teacher comments in their revisions.
5. The editing and revising stages in the writing process did assist learners to acquire simple grammar rules, and the feedback from the teacher was recognized to be more effective in the present study.
The findings of this study served as significant references for EFL instructors when designing grammatical and writing activities for young learners, so that beginning writers can also enjoy writing and build up basic grammatical knowledge at the same time.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract(Chinese).........................................i
Abstract (English)......................................iii
Acknowledgements..........................................v
Table of Contents........................................vi
List of Tables..........................................xii
List of Figures........................................xiii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION.................................1
Background of the Study...............................1
Motivation............................................5
Purpose of the Study......................................8
Research Questions....................................9
Significance of the Study............................10
Limitation of the Study..............................11
Definition of Terms..................................12

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW...........................15
Grammar Instruction to EFL Learners..................15
Drawbacks of Traditional Grammar Instruction.....15
Suggestions for Modern Grammar Instruction.......17
The Necessity of Contexts....................17
Teacher-initiated Grammar Instruction........19
ESL/EFL Students’Need of Grammar
Instruction.................................21
Summary..........................................22
Process Writing......................................22
Features of Process Writing......................22
Merits of Process Writing........................24
Summary..........................................27
Peer Feedback........................................27
The Advantages of Peer Review....................28
Authentic Communication......................28
Effectiveness of Literacy Development........30
Connection between Metacognition and
Action of Effective Writing..................32
Learners’ Positive Attitudes................32
The Disadvantages of Peer Review.................34
Time Issue...................................34
Unstable Quality of Peer Feedback............35
Learners’ Cultural Background...............36
Teachers’ Anxiety...........................37
The Training of Peer Review.....................37
Summary..........................................40
Teacher Feedback.....................................40
The Advantages of Teacher Review.................40
Substantial Facilitation to Writing..........41
Students’ Preference........................42
The Disadvantages of Teacher Review..............43
De-motivation................................43
Frustrating Students’ Further Writing.......44
Doubts in Reliability and Validity...........45
Summary..........................................46

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHOD...........................47
Research Design......................................47
Participants.........................................49
Training.............................................50
Procedures...........................................53
Survey Instrument....................................58

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND FINDINGS.......................61
The Subjects’ Perception of Learning Grammar
through Contextualized Writing.......................64
Question 1.......................................64
Question 1-A and 1-B.............................66
The Subjects’Attitudes toward Peer and Teacher
Comments.............................................68
Question 2-A and 2-B.............................68
The Comparison of More Experienced Learners’and
Beginners’ Perceptions of Peer Review and Teacher
Review...............................................73
Question 3-A and 3-B.............................73
The Subjects’Incorporation of Peer and Teacher
Comments in Revisions................................75
Question 4.......................................75
The Subjects’ Perceived Effectiveness of Revision...77
Question 5.......................................77
The Effectiveness of the Writing Process on
Grammar Learning.....................................78
Question 6-A and 6-B.............................78
Summary..............................................80

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............84
Conclusions..........................................85
Discussions..........................................86
Recommendations......................................89
Recommendations for Practice.....................89
Recommendations for Further Studies..............91

REFERENCES...............................................93

APPENDIXES..............................................100
Appendix A: The Consent for the Subjects............100
Appendix B: Class Schedule..........................101
Appendix C: Text and Worksheets.....................103
There is/There are..............................103
Don' t..........................................110
Appendix D: Feedback Form for Peer Review...........114
Appendix E: Questionnaire...........................115
Mean Scores of Each Questionnaire Item..........118
Appendix F: Grammar Test............................120
Appendix G: Permission Letter for Use of the
Questionnaire.......................................121

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Matrix Matching Research Questions with
Survey Instrument Items..................................63
Table 4.2 Summary of Subjects’Demographic data.........64
Table 4.3 Mean Scores of the Five Dimensions............65
Table 4.4 The Items and Mean Scores of Dimension I: Attitudes toward Learning Grammar through Writing........67
Table 4.5 Subjects’Attitudes toward Learning Grammar through Writing..........................................67
Table 4.6 The Items and Mean Scores of Dimension II
and III: Attitudes toward Peer Review....................69
Table 4.7 The Items and Mean Scores of Dimension IV: Attitudes toward Teacher Review..........................70
Table 4.8 Learners’Attitudes toward Feedback Styles
(in General).............................................71
Table 4.9 Summary of Subjects’Comments of Peer and Teacher Review...........................................73
Table 4.10 Learners’Attitudes toward Feedback Styles Based on Their Learning Experiences......................75
Table 4.11 Learners’Incorporation of Peer and Teacher Comments.................................................76
Table 4.12 The Items and Mean Scores of Dimension V: Attitudes toward Revision................................78
Table 4.13 Summary of Errors in the Drafts and the Grammar Test.............................................80
Table 4.14 Summary of the Results.......................82

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 The Framework of the Research................48
Figure 3.2 The Procedures of the Research...............57
Figure 3.3 The Components of the Questionnaire..........60

REFERENCES
Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics and pedagogy (pp. 90-116). UK: Multilingual Matters.
Asselin, M. (2002). Teaching grammar. Teacher Librarian, 29, 52-53.
Barnitz, J. G. (1998). Revising grammar instruction for authentic composing and comprehending. The Reading Teacher, 51, 608-611.
Berg, B. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and written quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
Boyle, O. F. (1982). Writing: Process vs. product. In O. Boyle (Ed.), Writing lessons II: Lessons in writing by teachers (pp. 39-44). Berkeley: University of California/Bay Area Writing Project.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
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 response to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188.
Cho, K, Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 891-901.
Chu, M. P. (2001). Apply process writing as a cooperative learning strategy to the ESL/EFL writing class. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 7, 27-39.
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.
Feng, S., & Powers, K. (2005). The short- and long-term effect of explicit grammar instruction on fifth graders’ writing. Reading Improvement, 42, 67-72.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-319.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Fredericks, A. D., Blake-Kline, B., & Kristo, J. V. (1997). Teaching the integrated language arts: Process and practice. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31-38.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hike, E. V. (1990). Cooperative learning. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321-342.
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44, 279-285.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307-317.
Jou, Y. A., Yang, A. S., Kuo, S. T., Huang, H. H., & Mai, W. H. (2006). How multiple intelligence approach facilitates grammar instruction in elementary school English classroom. Journal of Chungchou, 23, 157-167.
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44, 294-304.
Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 247-257.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Landolfi, L. (1998). Children writing in a foreign language. Dream or reality? Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 98, 99-118.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Y. (2006). Alternative to forms of response for teachers’ feedback on Chinese EFL students’ writing in college level. US-China Foreign Language, 4, 72-77.
Liao, Y. D. (2006). The role of peer-editing in helping ESL vocational college freshmen reduce their grammatical errors in writing English compositions. Journal of KHC General Education, 3, 49-70.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5, 17-29.
Manly, J., & Calk, L. (1997). Grammar instruction for writing skills: Do students perceive grammar as useful? Foreign Language Annals, 30, 77-83.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail. English Teaching & Learning, 27, 85-103.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
The Ministry of Education (Ed.). (2003). The outline of nine-year integrated curriculum for junior high and elementary school: The field of language learning. Taipei, TW: MOE.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 56, 180-186.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in writing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Pappas, C. C., Kiefer, B. Z., & Levstik, L. S. (2006). An integrated language perspective in the elementary school: An action approach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (1997). Reading, writing, learning in ESL. (2nd ed.). NY: London Publishers USA.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23-30.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31-54.
Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, W. Y., & Wang, L. F. (2004). L2 writing research in China: An overview. Foreign Language World, 3, 51-58.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (1998). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. In C. Weaver (Ed.), Lessons to share: On teaching grammar in context (pp. 18-38). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, C., McNally, C., & Moerman, S. (2001). To grammar or not to grammar: That is not the question! Voice from the Middle, 8, 17-33.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Harlow: London.
Wong, H. M. H., & Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness, 15, 283-300.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Yao, L., & Cheng, L. N. (2005). A research on domestic research on EFL writing. Foreign Language World, 5, 2-9.
Yu, K. H. (2003). The measurement on college students’ English competence and the orientation of college English curriculum. In Ming Chuan University compilation, The Proceedings of 2003 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Llinguistics (pp. 512-514). Taipei: Crane.
Zhang, R. (2004). Implicit cognition and its implications for English grammar teaching. Foreign Language World, 4, 43-47.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.