臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

論文名稱：跨校交換英文電子信件活動在高中英文教學之效益研究
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：九十五學年度第二學期
指導教授：張玉玲 博士
研究生 ：彭伊珍

論文摘要：
本研究主旨在探討跨校交換英文電子信件活動在高中英文教學之效益研究。此研究調查並分析學生對於英文閱讀、英文寫作、英文閱讀與寫作的結合、同儕互動以及對此跨校交換英文電子信件活動之最大收穫的反應。此外，本研究不但探討學生的英文閱讀與寫作能力在跨校交換英文電子信件活動前後是否有顯著差異，亦探究文體影響學生內容、組織、字彙、文法及體例五方面英文寫作表現之程度。
本研究以兩班級共九十八位高三學生為研究對象。其中一班級來自國立花蓮女中，共計五十位女學生，另一班級來自國立花蓮高中，共計四十八位男學生。在為期十二週跨校交換英文電子信件活動期間，所有受試者在寫英文電子信件之前，先閱讀同一文體的相關英文文章。然後受試者閱讀電子筆友的英文電子信件並回信。此外，在研究期間受試者須接受三次英文閱讀能力測驗。在跨校交換英文電子信件活動前後，學生必須接受前測、後測英文寫作能力測驗與前測、後測問卷調查。在資料分析方面，學生英文閱讀表現與英文寫作表現差異以量化分析與比較。學生對於前測、後測問卷回應採用質化與量化分析。
本研究的主要發現如下：
一、在跨校交換英文電子信件活動之前後，學生對於英文閱讀、英文寫作、以及英文閱讀與寫作的結合之回應有顯著之差異。學生表示英文閱讀提供他們英文寫作點子、加速英文寫作過程、增進英文寫作能力以及增加英文字彙與文法知識。
二、學生回應顯示出在跨校交換英文電子信件活動中同儕互動增強學生英文閱讀與寫作學習。透過與同學及電子筆友互動，學生習得英文字彙與文法、理解英文閱讀文章意義、獲得英文寫作靈感以及增進英文寫作能力。此外，學生特別肯定與電子筆友交換電子信件，因為除了在英文閱讀與寫作進步外，他們亦建立與電子筆友情誼、學習電腦操作、認識他校文化。
三、在跨校交換英文電子信件活動之前後，學生的整體英文寫作表現與在內容、組織、字彙、文法、體例五方面的英文寫作表現有顯著差異。
四、文體影響學生整體英文寫作表現。學生在描寫文方面表現的最好，而在論說文方面表現的最差。
五、在跨校交換英文電子信件活動中，學生在英文閱讀表現上無顯著進步。然而大部分的學生喜歡老師所提供的英文閱讀文章，並覺得文章容易理解。他們最喜愛的英文閱讀文章是A Terrible Trip，因為它容易引起動機、有趣而且與他們的生活經驗相關。他們較不喜歡的是The Rain Forest: What’s It Worth?，因為它內容嚴肅、陌生且難以理解。
六、學生對於跨校交換英文電子信件活動之最大收獲的項目排名依序為英文寫作表現、同儕互動、英文單字與語法、英文閱讀表現、英文寫作態度、電腦操作能力與友情。
根據以上研究結果，英文教師可以將英文閱讀與寫作結合與跨校交換英文電子信件活動融入英文寫作教學。此外，英文老師可以利用同儕互動來提升學生英文學習效率。最後，英文老師在課程設計時應該將學生喜好、背景知識以及他們寫作優點與弱點納入考量。

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the effects of the English e-mail exchange (EMEBS) on English instruction between two senior high schools. Specifically, the student responses to English reading, writing, reading-and-writing connection, peer interaction and the best gains in the EMEBS were surveyed and analyzed. Besides, whether there were significant differences in the students’ English writing performance and English reading performance before and after the EMEBS was explored. To what extent rhetorical devices influenced the students’ English writing performance in content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics was also investigated.
The subjects of this study are two classes of 98 twelfth graders. One class was from Hualien Girls’ Senior High School with 50 girl students, and the other class was from Hualien Senior High School with 48 boy students. In the process of the twelve-week study, all the subjects were asked to read a relevant English article before writing English e-mail of the same rhetorical device to their key-pals. Then, they read and replied key-pals’ e-mail. In addition, they were required to take three English reading comprehension tests in the process of the EMEBS. Before and after the EMEBS, they also took the English writing proficiency pretest and post-test, and answered the pre-study and post-study questionnaires. Data from the students’ English reading and writing performances, and their responses to the pre-study and post-study questionnaires were collected and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data analyses, the findings of the study are summarized as follows.
1. There are significant differences in the student responses to English reading, writing, and reading-and-writing connection before and after the EMEBS. The students expressed that English reading provided them with ideas for English writing, facilitated their English writing processes, promoted their English writing proficiency and helped expand their use of English vocabulary and syntactic usage.
2. The student responses revealed that peer interaction in the EMEBS enhanced their learning English reading and writing. Through interaction with their classmates and key-pals, they learned new English expressions and language use, understood the meaning of the English reading selections, got inspiration for English writing, and progressed in English writing. Moreover, they especially appreciated exchanging e-mail with key-pals because they developed friendships, computer literacy, and cultural awareness of the other school.
3. There are significant differences in the students’ overall English writing performance and five types of English writing performance in terms of content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics before and after the EMEBS.
4. The rhetorical devices influenced the students’ English writing performance. The students performed best in the descriptive writing but performed worst in the argumentative writing.
5. There is no significant difference in the students’ English reading performance in the EMEBS. However, most of the students liked the English reading selections and found them easy to understand. Their favorite English reading selection was A Terrible Trip because it was motivating, interesting, and related to their life experiences. The one they liked least was The Rain Forest: What’s It Worth? because it was serious, unfamiliar and difficult for them to understand.
6. The ranking of the students’ best gains in the EMEBS is (a) English writing performance, (b) peer interaction, (c) English vocabulary and language use, (d) English reading performance, (e) attitudes toward English writing, (f) computer literacy and (g) friendship.
On the basis of the study findings, it is suggested that EFL teachers incorporate English reading-and-writing connection and e-mail exchange projects into their English writing instruction. Moreover, EFL teachers can take advantage of peer interaction to promote students’ English learning efficiency. Finally, in the English curriculum design, EFL teachers should take into consideration students’ preferences, background knowledge, and their strengths and weaknesses in English writing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background and Motivation 1
Purposes of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 8
Limitations of the Study 9
Definition of Terms 10

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
The Nature of Reading 12
The Bottom-up Model 12
The Top-down Model 14
The Interactive Model 18
The Nature of Writing 20
Product-oriented Writing 20
Process-oriented Writing 22
The Relationship Between Reading and Writing 27
Implementation of E-mail in EFL Instruction 30
Advantages of Implementing E-mail in EFL Instruction 31
Studies of Implementing E-mail in EFL Instruction 36

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Subjects 42
Instruments 43
The English Reading Selections 43
The English Writing Proficiency Pretest in the EMEBS 45
The English Writing Proficiency Post-test in the EMEBS 47
The Pre-study and Post-study Questionnaires 47
The Students’ Exchanged E-mail 48
The English Reading Comprehension Tests 49
Study Procedures 49
Data Analysis 51

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A Comparison of the Student Responses to English Reading, Writing, and Reading-and-Writing Connection 53
A Comparison of the Student Responses to English Reading Before and After the EMEBS 54
A Comparison of the Student Responses to English Writing Before and After the EMEBS 56
A Comparison of the Student Responses to Reading-and-Writing
Connection Before and After the EMEBS 59
The Student Responses to Reading-and-Writing Connection 61
The Student Responses to Peer Interaction in the EMEBS 64
The Students' English Writing Performance Before and After the EMEBS 69
A Comparison of the Students' English Writing Performance Between the Pretest and the Post-test 69
A Comparison of Five Types of the Students' English Writing Performance Between the Pretest and the Post-test 70
A Comparison of the Student Responses to Five Types of English Writing Performance Between the Pretest and the Post-test 72
The Students’ English Writing Performance in Four Rhetorical Devices and Responses 74
A Comparison of the Students' English Writing Performance in Four Rhetorical Devices 75
A Comparison of Four Rhetorical Devices and Five Types of the Students’ English Writing Performance 77
The Student Responses to the English Writing Topics 80
The Student Responses to the English Writing Topics in the EMEBS 80
Ranking of the English Writing Topics that the Students Like Most 81
Ranking of the English Writing Topics that the Students Like Least 83
The Students' English Reading Performance and Responses 85
The Students’ English Reading Performance 85
The Student Responses to the English Reading Selections 87
The Student Responses to the English Reading Selections in the EMEBS 87
Ranking of the English Reading Selections that the Students Like Most 88
Ranking of the English Reading Selections that the Students Like Least 90
Ranking of the Students’ Best Gains in the EMEBS 93

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
Conclusions 102
Implications 106
Suggestions 107

REFERENCES 109
Appendix A-1: Reading Selection 1: A Terrible Trip 120
Appendix A-2: Reading Selection 2: The Unknown Architect 121
Appendix A-3: Reading Selection 3: What’s In A Word? 123
Appendix A-4: Reading Selection 4: The Rain Forest: What Is It Worth? 125
Appendix B-1: A Pre-study Questionnaire on the Student Responses to English Reading, Writing, and Reading-and-Writing Connection 127
Appendix B-2: A Post-study Questionnaire on the Student Responses to the EMEBS 129
Appendix C-1: English Reading Comprehension Test 1 133
Appendix C-2: English Reading Comprehension Test 2 135
Appendix C-3: English Reading Comprehension Test 3 137
Appendix D-1: The Student Responses in Chinese to the English Writing Topic They Like Most: A Memorable Trip 139
Appendix D-2: The Student Responses in Chinese to the English Writing Topic They Like Least: Success 141
Appendix D-3: The Student Responses in Chinese to the English Reading Selection They Like Most: A Terrible Trip
Topic They Like Most: A Memorable Trip 143
Appendix D-4: The Student Responses in Chinese to the English Reading Selection They Like Least: The Rain Forest: What’s It Worth? 145
Appendix D-5: The Student Responses in Chinese to the Best Gains in the EMEBS 147


LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
1. An ESL Composition Profile 46
2. Four Rhetorical Devices and Four English Writing Topics in the EMEBS 48
3. A Comparison of the Student Responses to English Reading Before and After the EMEBS 54
4. A Comparison of the Student Responses to English Writing Before and After the EMEBS 57
5. A Comparison of the Student Responses to Reading-and-Writing Connection Before and After the EMEBS 60
6. The Student Responses to Reading-and-Writing Connection in the
EMEBS 62
7. The Student Responses to Peer Interaction in the EMEBS 65
8. A Comparison of the Students' English Writing Performance Between the Pretest and the Post-test 69
9. A Comparison of Five Types of the English Writing Performance of the Students Between the Pretest and the Post-test 71
10. A Comparison of the Student Responses to Five Types of English Writing Performance Between the Pretest and the Post-test 72
11. A Comparison of Four Rhetorical Devices and Five Types of English Writing Performance of the Students 78
12. The Student Responses to the English Writing Topics in the EMEBS 81
13. Ranking of the English Writing Topics that the Students Like Most 82
14. Ranking of the English Writing Topics that the Students Like Least 83
15. A Comparison of the Students' First and Third English Reading Performances 86
16. The Student Responses to the English Reading Selections in the EMEBS 88
17. Ranking of the English Reading Selections that the Students Like Most 89
18. Ranking of the English Reading Selections that the Students Like Least 91
19. Ranking of the Student Responses to the Best Gains in the EMEBS 93

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1. The Rumelhart’s interactive reading model (1977) 19
2. The composing model of reading and writing (Tierney & Pearson, 1983) 28
3. A flow chart of the study procedures 50
4. A comparison of the students' English writing performance in four rhetorical devices 75

REFERENCES

Applebee, A. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. In A. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing: 85th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 95–113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Au, K. (1979). Using the experience-text-relationship method with minority children. The Reading Teacher, 32 (6), 677-679.
Barnes, S. B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human communication across the Internet. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Barnett, M. A. (1989). Language in education: Theory and practice, no. 73. CAL/ERIC series on languages and linguistics. More than meets the eye: Foreign language reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Barrs, M. (2000). The reader in the writer. Reading, 54-60.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication: Technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. D. Bush (Ed.), Technology enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Belisle, R. (1996). E-mail activities in the ESL writing class. The Internet TESL Journal, 2 (12). Retrieved July 10, 2006, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Belisle-E-mail.html.
Birnbaum, J. & Emig, J. (1983). Creating minds, created texts: Writing and reading. In R. P. Parker & F. A. Davis (Eds.), Developing literacy: Young children’s uses of language (pp. 87-104). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Blanton, L. L. (2001). Composition practice, Book 2 & Book 3. Boston: Heinle, a division of Thomson Learning Inc.
Bonk, C. J. & Cummings, A. J. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the center of web-based learning. Educational Media International, 35 (2), 82-89.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carrell, P. L. (1998). Interactive text processing: Implications for ESL/second language reading classrooms. In P. L. Carrel, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 239-259). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Y.-L. (1992). Contact of the three dimensions of language and culture: Methods and perspectives of an e-mail writing program. In The selected papers of the eighth conference on English language teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 541-562). Taipei: Crane.
Chang, Y.-L. (1996). A computer is no longer a typewriter in a writing class. The Journal of National Kaohsiung Normal University, 7, 203-225.
Chen, S.-J. (2003). Bridging the gap between reading and writing in English writing instruction for senior high school students. M. A. Thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chen, B. C., Kao, S. C., Shih, K. L., & Li, Y. T. (1997). The application of Internet on English writing. In The proceedings of the sixth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 80-105). Taipei: Crane.
Cheng, L.-J. & Tsai, M.-T. (2002). The use of cross-curricula e-mail exchanges to promote English writing in a technology college context. In The proceedings of the sixth international conference on multimedia language education (pp. 137-150). Taipei: Crane.
Chun, D. (1998). Using computer assisted class discussion to facilitate the acquisition interactive competence. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley & K. Arens. (Eds.), Language learning online: Theory and practice 2 (pp. 55-80). Austin, Texas: Labyrinth Publications.
Clarke, M. A. (1998). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading-or when language competence interferes with reading performance. In P. L. Carrel, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 114-124). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clouse, B. F. (1994). Transitions: From reading to writing. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Cooper, M. M. & Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52, 847-869.
Cunningham, K. (2000) Integrating CALL into the writing curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (5). Retrieved July 9, 2006 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Cunningham-CALLWriting
Daiute, C. A. (1983). The computer as stylus and audience. College Composition and Communication, 34, 134-245.
Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141-159.
Daly, J. A. (1977). The effects of writing apprehension on message encoding. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 566-572.
Daly, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 10-14.
Daly, J. A. (1979). Writing apprehension in the classroom: Teacher role expectancies of the apprehensive writer. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 37-44.
Daly, J. A. & Miller, M. D. (1975). Apprehension of writing as a predictor of message intensity. Journal of Psychology, 89, 175-177.
Dechant, E. (1991). Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dykes, M. (2001) Assessment and evaluation of peer interaction: Using computer-mediated communication in post-secondary academic education. (2001, April). Retrieved November 25, 2005 from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/dykes/dykes.htm.
Eskey, D. E. (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of English as a second language. Language Learning, 23 (2), 169-184.
Eskey, D. E. & Grabe, W. (1998). Interactive models for second language reading: Perspectives on instruction. In P. L. Carrel, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 223-238). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fedderholdt, K. (2001). An e-mail exchange project between non-native speakers of English. ELT Journal, 55, 273-280.
Fry, E. (1989). Reading formulas: Maligned but valid. Journal of Reading, 32, 292-297.
Gilbert, L. & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38 (3), 29-35.
Gonglewski, M., Meloni, C., & Brant, J. (2001). Using e-mail in foreign language teaching: Rationale and suggestions. The Internet TESL Journal, 7 (3). Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Meloni-Email.html.
Graves, D. (1985). All children can write. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 36-43. Retrieved January 24, 2007 from www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/writing/graves_process.html.
Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (1), 46-70. Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vo17num1/greenfield/default.html.
Hadley, A.O. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ho, C. M. L. (2000). Developing intercultural awareness and writing skills through email exchange. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (12). Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ho-Email.html.
Holmes, N. (2002). The use of a process-oriented approach to facilitate the planning and production stages of writing for adult students of English as a foreign or second language. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/processw2_nicola.htm.
Holt, S. L. & Vacca, J. L. (1984). Reading with a sense of writer: Writing with a sense of reader. In J. M. Jensen (Ed.), Composing and comprehending (pp. 177-181). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Huang, Y. K. (1997). A fluency first experiment: Teaching reading and writing the whole language way. In The proceedings of the sixth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 332-341). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Hughey, J. B., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Jacobs, H. L. (1983). Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques. Rowley: Newbury House Publisher, Inc.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (Research report No.3). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Kann, C.-L. (2001). The effects of gender on Internet-assisted English writing instruction for senior high school students. M. A. Thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Kern, R. G, & Schultz, J. M. (1992). The effects of composition instruction on intermediate level French students’ writing performance: Some preliminary findings. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 1-13.
Kim, S.-H. (2004). The writing process in the process-oriented writing class. English Language Teaching, 16 (3), 109-134.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.
Kucer, S. B. (2001). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Langer, J. A. (1980). Facilitating text processing: The elaboration of prior knowledge. In J. A. Langer & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds), Reader meets author/bridging the gap (pp. 149-162). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.
Lapp, D., Flood, J., & Farnan, N. (Eds.) (1989). Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
LaPointe, D. K. (2005). Effects of peer interaction facilitated by computer-mediated conferencing on learning outcomes. Retrieved February 7, 2007 from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_62.pdf
Lee, K.-W. (2000). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (12). Retrieved February 1, 2007 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Liang, T. L. (1996). Cooperative learning on the Internet: The intercultural e-mail classroom connection. In The proceedings of the fifth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 233-242). Taipei: Crane.
Liaw, M.-L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a foreign language instruction. System, 26, 335-351.
Lu, K.-Y. (2004). Effects of e-mail exchanges on EFL senior high school students' English writing. M. A. Thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Lu, Q.-X. (2003). The effects of using cross-cultural e-mail exchange projects on developing Taiwanese junior high school students' linguistic skills and cultural awareness: A case study of seventeen junior high school students. M. A. Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response: Conversations of high and low apprehension writers. Written Communication, 8 (4), 509-532.
Madjidi, E., Hughes, H. W., Johnson, R. N., & Cary, K. (1999). Virtual learning environments. (Report No. IR 019 512) Pepperdine University. ERIC ED 429565.
Mason, R. (1991). Analyzing computer conferencing interactions. International Journal of Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2 (3), 161-173.
McCormick, T. W. (1988). Theories of reading in dialogue: An interdisciplinary study. New York: University Press of America.
Montague, M. (1990). Computers, cognition, and writing instruction. New York: State University of New York Press.
Nelson, N. & Calfee, R. (1998). The reading-writing connection viewed historically. In Nelson, N. & R. Calfee (Eds.), The reading and writing connection (pp. 1-52). The Ninety-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part II). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Noyce, R. M. & Christie, J. F. (1989). Integrating reading and writing instruction in grades K-8. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacor, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Nunan, D. (1998) Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
Patrikis, P. (1995). Where is computer technology taking us. ADFL Bulletin, 26 (2), 36-39.
Pearson, P. D. & Spiro, R. (1982). The new buzz word in reading is schema. Instructor, 41, 46-48.
Phinney, M. (1988). Computers, composition and second language learning. In Pennington, M. C. (Ed.), Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art (pp. 81-96). San Francisco: Athenlstan.
Phinney, M. (1991). Computer-assisted writing and writing apprehension in ESL students. In Dunkel, P. (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 189-204). New York: Newbury House, A Division of Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Phinney, M. & Mathis, C. (1990). ESL student responses to writing with computers. TESOL Newsletter, 24, 30-31.
Raphael, T. E. & Kirschner, B. W. (1985) The effects of instruction in comparison/contrast text structure on six-grade students’ reading comprehension and writing products. East Langsing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Rayner, K. & Alexander, P. (1989). Models of reading. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
Reiss, D. (1995) Letter writing and new literacies for nontraditional students. (ERIC Documents Reproduction Service No. ED 387816.)
Robinson, R. P. (1941). Effective study. New York: Harper and Row.
Rubin, D. (1992). Teaching reading and study skills in content areas. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacor, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol.6, pp. 573-603). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, H. J. (1984). Teaching writing with computer aids. College English, 46, 239-247.
Schwienkorst, K. (1998). The “third place”-virtual reality applications for second language learning. ReCALL, 10 (1), 118-126.
Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1988). A developmental comparison of three theoretical models of reading-writing relationship. Research in the Teaching of English, 22 (2), 196-212.
Smith, M. W. (1984). Reducing writing apprehension. Illinois: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reducing and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 157-159.
Stosky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60 (5), 627-643.
Swaffar, J. K. (1979). Good and poor readers’ recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11 (4), 375-380.
Thomson, L. E. (2003). Exemplary practices in the reading and writing connection. (2003, July). Retrieved September 28, 2005 from http://www.bridgew.edu/Library/CAGS_Projects/LTHOMSON/web%20page/r-w%20connection.htm.
Tierney, R. J. (1992). Ongoing research and new directions. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 246-260). Newark. DE: International Reading Association.
Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60, 568-580.
Tierney, R. J., Soter, A., O’Flahavan, J. F., & McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (2), 134-173.
Tompkins, G. E. (2004). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Vaezi, S. (2006) Theories of reading (2006, March). Retrieved January 12, 2007 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/read/reading_theories.shtml.
Van Handle, D. C., & Corl, K. A. (1998). Extending the dialogue: Using electronic mail and the Internet to promote conversation and writing in intermediate level German language courses. CALICO Journal, 15, 129-143.
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.
Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H. & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Weber, R. M. (1984). Reading: United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 4, 111-123.
Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kieeler (Ed.), Culture and the Internet (pp. 179-207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.