(3.239.192.241) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/02 18:44
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:劉又儀
研究生(外文):You-yi Liu
論文名稱:線上寫作回饋對學生寫作表現之析論---以國小五年級學童為例
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Online Writing Feedback on Writing Performance—An Example of the Fifth Graders in Elementary School
指導教授:鄒慧英鄒慧英引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huei-Ying Tzou
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺南大學
系所名稱:測驗統計研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:教育測驗評量學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:120
中文關鍵詞:教師寫作回饋線上寫作回饋評量系統寫作表現階層線性模式
外文關鍵詞:teachers’ feedbackwriting performancehierarchical linear modelingonline writing feedback assessment
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:360
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:78
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究旨在探討線上寫作回饋對學生寫作表現的影響,同時比較使用不同寫作工具的學生其寫作表現(包含三個效標變項:寫作品質、寫作字數和文章錯誤率)是否有差異存在。研究者自行發展線上寫作回饋評量系統,以國小五年級學生六個月的成長斜率為檢視寫作表現的客觀指標。
研究中擇取台南市某國小五年級三個班級,分為線上回饋組、線上分數組、紙筆回饋控制組(共97人)。論文中首先分析寫作評量之信度與效度,再進一步對照不同群體學生在三個效標變項的成長率之差異。主要發現如下:
一、 寫作回饋評量的評分者一致性相當不錯;在內容效度上,實作評量專家認為寫作評量的主題均具有適切性。在效標關聯效度上,寫作回饋評量與國小期中考作文成績之相關為.52;與在校國語成績相關為.36。
二、 以HLM(階層線性模式)分析的斜率作為分析學生寫作表現的客觀性指標,在寫作品質與文章字數方面,顯示三個班級的成長斜率由大而小依序為線上回饋組,紙筆回饋組和線上分數組。在文章錯誤率方面,三個班級的成長斜率由小到大依序為線上回饋組、線上分數組和紙筆回饋組,大致符合邏輯上的預期。
三、 研究中三種類型的教師回饋:聚焦意義的回饋、聚焦錯誤的回饋和正向建議,均能使三組學生做出相對應的修改,但紙筆回饋控制較其他兩組更能針對文章的錯誤進行修改。
綜合初步資訊,本研究對線上寫作回饋評量系統的設計和實施規劃提出未來研究的建議。
The purposes of this study were to investigate the effect of online writing feedback to writing performance (including the quality of writing, total words of writing and wrong ratio of article), and to compare the writing performance of students with different writing tools in the meantime. The online writing feedback system was to be developed. Also, the six-month growth slope of 5th graders was served as the objective indicator for writing performance.
The data source came from three classes with 97 5th graders in an elementary school in Tainan, including an online feedback class as an experiment group, an online-grade class as an experiment group and a paper-and-pencil control group. The evidence of reliability and validity of writing tasks was first examined. And then, the differences of growth among different groups would be compared.
The conclusions are as follows:
1. The index of rater consistency of online-writing assessment is good. As to content validity, the expert of performance assessment agreed that designs of writing tasks precisely accord with the point of writing ability of 5th graders. As to criterion validity, the Pearson correlation coefficients of the online writing assessment versus academic writing test and academic language test in school are .52 and .36, separately.
2. The slope obtained by hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analysis is used to be the writing performance objective indicator. As to the quality of writing and total words of writing, the slope of online-feedback group is larger than that of the online-grade group and that of the paper-and-pencil control group. As to wrong ratio of article, the paper-and-pencil control group is the smallest.
3. The three types of teachers’ feedback are meaning-focused feedback, error-focused feedback and positive comments. All the three types could make 5th graders revise their writing properly. Especially, the paper-and-pencil control group could make more revision than the online feedback group and online grade group.
Based on the above research findings, some suggestions for designs and plans of online feedback writing assessment and future studies are made.
中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………………i
英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………………...ii
誌謝辭………………………………………………………………………………………..iii
目錄…………………………………………………………………………………………..iv
表目錄………………………………………………………………………………………..vi
圖目錄………………………………………………………...……………………………...ix
第壹章   緒論…………………………………………………………………………...1
第一節  研究動機……………………………………………………………………...2
第二節  研究目的與問題……………………………………………………………...7
第三節  名詞釋義……………………………………………………….......................7
第貳章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………………...9
第一節 電腦寫作與傳統寫作的差異………………………………...........................9
第二節 寫作回饋的相關研究……………………………………….........................16
第三節 不同教師回饋類型與學生修改類型之探究……………………………….26
第四節 線上寫作回饋相關研究………………………………………………….....30
第參章 研究方法………………………………………………………………….....38
第一節 研究架構與流程………………………………………………………….....38
第二節 研究對象………………………………………………………………….....41
第三節 研究工具……………………………………………………….....................42
第四節 資料處理與分析……………………………………………………….........47
第肆章 研究結果與討論………………………………………………………….....49
第一節 線上寫作回饋評量的信效度分析……………………………………….....49
第二節 不同群體對寫作回饋之介入反應性分析…………………….....................57
第三節 教師回饋類型對學生文章修改的影響………………………………….....80
第伍章 結論與建議………………………………………………………………...105
第一節 研究結論…………………………………………………………...............105
第二節 研究建議…………………………………………………………...............107
第三節 研究限制……………………………………………………………...........108
參考文獻……………………………………………………………………………….......110
附錄一………………………………………………………………………………….......119
中文文獻:
邱上真、洪碧霞(1998)。國語文低成就學生閱讀表現之追蹤研究─國民小學國語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究。(國科會專案計畫報告,計畫編號:NSC-87-2413-H-017-003-F5)。
陳秋瑤(2003)。作文新題型之教學研究。國立高雄師範大學國文教學研究所碩士論文。
黃郁婷、程秀山(2002)。「網路互動式寫作輔助系統」之理論基礎與實務。論文發表於e世代創意與教學研討會。嘉義:國立嘉義大學。
黃郁婷(2003)。國小六年級學生運用網路寫作系統之個案分析。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
張新仁(1992)。寫作教學研究:認知心理學取向。高雄:復文。
教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程正式綱要。台北:教育部。
康軒文教事業(2006)。《國語教學指引(第十冊)》。
楊孟鑫(2003)。網路寫作學習環境的設計與系統開發。國立中央大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。
鄒慧英(1997)。實作型評量的品管議題—兼談檔案評量之應用。發表於教育測驗新近發展趨勢學術研討會,台南市:國立臺南師範學院。
西文文獻:
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Technology in testing: the present and the future. System, 28(4), 593-603.
Amold, V., Legas, J., Obler, S., Pacheco, M. A., Russell, C., & Umbdenstock, L. (1990). Do students get higher scorers on their word-processed papers? A study of bias in scoring hand-written versus word-processed papers. Unpublished manuscript, Rio Hondo College, Whittier, CA.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom : is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language writing, 9(3), 227-248.
Attalti, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features on Criterion. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), San Diego, CA.
Bailey, J., & Vardi, I. (1999). Iterative feedback: impacts on student writing. HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne.
Bain, J. D., Mills, C., Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Developing reflection on practice through journal writing: impacts of variations in the focus and level of feedback. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(2), 171-198.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: a meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.
Barrera, M. T., Rule, A. C., Diemart, A. (2001). The effect of writing with computers versus handwriting achievement of first-graders. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 215-228. Accessed March, 5, 2004, InfoTrac database.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-422.
Bridwell, L., Sirc, G.., Brooke, R. (1985). Case studies of student writers. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language (pp. 172-194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: present research and some future directions. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 44-59. Retrieved February 13, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http//llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/brown/default.html.
Burston, J. (2001). Computer-mediated feedback in composition correction. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 37-50.
Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: the effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1-14.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: a critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 107-155.
Cohen, A. D., & Calvacanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports, In B. Kroll (ed), Second Language Writing Research Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 155-177.
Daiute, C. A. (1985). Issue in using computers to socialize the writing process. Educational Computing Teachers Journal, 33(1), 41-50.
Daiute, C. (2000). Writing and communication technologies. In Indrisano, R., & Squire, J. R. (Eds.). Perspective on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dheram, P. (1995). Feedback as a two-bullock cart: a case study of teaching writing. ELT Journal, 49(2), 160-169.
Dickinson, P. F. (1992). Feedback that works: using the computer to responds. ED356490.
DiGiovanni, E. & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: an alternative to face to face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272.
Doher, G. (1991). Do teachers’ comments on students’ papers help? College Teaching, 39(2), 48-55.
Duppenthaler, P. (2003). A study of the effect of three different types of feedback on writing: part1- research questions, participants, site, materials, and procedures. Studies and Essays, 38, 1-21.
Duppenthaler, P. (2005). A study of three different types of feedback on writing : part3 – discussion and conclusion. Studies and Essays, 40, 1-19
Fallows, S., & Ahmet, K. (1999). Inspiring students: case studies on motivating the learner. London: Kogan Page.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fatton, A. & Severinson-Eklundh, K. (1997). How to support in-process planning in a computer-based writing environment. In proceedings of the European Writing Conference, Barcelona.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
Fife, J. M., O’Neill, P. (2001). Moving beyond the written comment: narrowing the gap between response practice and research. College Composition and Communication, 53(2), 300-321.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481-506.
Fitzgerald, J., & Markham, L. R. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3-24.
Freedman, S.W. (1987). Response to student writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.


Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing : a meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1-51.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answer about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80.
Gonzalez-Bueno, M., & Perez, L. C. (2000). Electronic mail in foreign language writing: a study of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity of language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 189-198.
Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(4), 23-28.
Grejda, G. F., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Effects of word processing on sixth graders’ holistic writing and revisions. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 144-149.
Haas, C., & Hayes, J. R. (1986). Pen and paper vs the machine: writers composing in hard copy and computer conditions. Pittsburgh: CDC Technical Report16.
Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24(1), 43-60.
Hanson, J., C. Millington, C., & Freewood, M. (2001). Developing a methodology for online assessment and feedback. In M. Danson and C. Eabry (Eds.) 5th International Computer Assisted Conference. Loughborough University, Loughborough University.
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106-1113
Hedges, L. & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hood, L. M. (1994). Effects of computer correspondence on student writing. (ED371398).
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1981). The evolution of user behavior in a computerized conferencing system. Communications of the ACM, 24(11), 739-762.
Hoot, J. L., & Kimler, M. (1987). Early childhood classroom and computers: programs with promise. (Report No. 297515). Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
Hyland, K. (1990). The word processor in language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 3, 69-78.
Jackiewicz, G. (1995). The effect of computer based instruction on writing at the elementary level. (ED380802).
Kasanga, L. A. (2004). Students response to peer and teacher feedback in a first-year writing course. Journal for Language Teaching, 38(1), 64-99.
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-305.
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313.
Kiefer, K. E., & Smith, C. R. (1983). Textual analysis with computers: test of Bell Laboratories’ computer software. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 201-214.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning Development. London: Prentice Hall International.
Lam, F. S. & Pennington, M. C. (1995). The computer vs. the pen : a comparative study of word processing in a Hong Kong secondary classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(1), 75-92.
Leonardi, E.B., & McDonald, J. L. (1991). Teaching process writing with computers. ED338218.
Li, C. (2006). The impact of teacher involved peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(5), 28-32.
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning: a review of the literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250-273.
Lohr, L., Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R. (1996). Using a hypertext environment for teaching process writing: an evaluation study of three student groups. ED397815.
Long, S. S. (1992). Using the process-model for writing: options for responding to student drafts. ED352826.
Macarthur, C. A. (1988). The impact of computers on the writing process. Exceptional Children, 54(6), 536-542.
Matsumura, L. C., Patthet-Chavez, G. G., Valdes, R. Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower and higher-achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3-25.

Mehlenbacher, B., Miller, C. R., Covington, D., & Larsen, J. S. (2000). Active and interactive learning online: a comparison of web-based and conventional writing classes. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(2), 166-185.
Milton, J. (2005). Exploration of the nature of feedback to students. Paper presented at the evaluations and assessment conference.
Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54(1), 47-53.
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2004). Rethinking formative assessment in HE: a theoretical model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Higher Education Academy http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/ assessment/SENLEF_001.rtf
Olson, M. W., & Raffeld, P. (1987). The effects of written comments on the quality of student compositions and the learning of content. Reading Psychology, 4, 273-293.
Palmquist, M., Kiefer, K., Hartvigsen, J., & Goodlew, B. (1998). Transitions: teaching in computer-supported and traditional classrooms. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Parshall, C. G., & Kromrey, J. D. (1993). Computer testing versus paper-and-pencil testing: an analysis of examinee characteristics associated with mode effect. ED363272.
Patthey-Chavez , G. G., & Ferris, D. R.(1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 51-90.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Pennington, M. C. (1991). The road ahead a forward-looking view of computers in language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 4(1), 3-19.
Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: a research, learning and teaching practice. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 259-278.
Peterson, S. E. (1993). A comparison of student revisions when composing with pen and paper versus word-processing. Computers in the Schools, 9(4), 55-69.
Phenix, J., & Hannan, E. (1984). Word processing in the grade one classroom. Language Arts, 61(8), 804-812.
Powers, D., Fowles, M., Farnum, M., & Ramsey P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220-233.
Reesor, M. (2002). Issues in written teacher feedback: a critical review. English Teacher: an International Journal, 5(3), 242-255.
Reynolds, T. H. (1996). Computerized prompting partners and keystroke recording devices: two macro driven writing tools. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 44(3), 83-97.
Riccomini, P. (2002). The comparative effectiveness of two forms of feedback: web-based model comparison and instructor delivered corrective feedback. Journal of computing research, 27(3), 213-228.
Russell, M. & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: an experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Electronic journal article available at: http://olam.ed.asu/epaa/v5n3.html.
Russell, M. (2000). It’s time to upgrade: tests and administration procedures for the new millennium. ED452833.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Education Psychology, 18(3), 337-353.
Seawel, L., Smaldino, S. E., Steele, J. L., & Lewis, J. Y. (1994). A descriptive study comparing computer-based word processing and handwriting on attitudes and performance of third and fourth grade students involved in a program based on a process approach to writing. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(1), 43-59.
Siegel, M. E. A. (1982). Responses to student writing from new composition faculty, College Composition and Communication, 33(3), 302-309.
Song, M. (1998). Experimental study of the effect of controlled vs. free writing and different feedback types on writing quality and writing apprehension of EFL college students. ED423703.
Sperling, M. (1995). Revealing the teacher as reader: a framework for discussion and learning. Occasional Paper No. 40. National Centre for the Study of Writing and Literacy, Pittsburgh, PA.
Spinks, S. (1998). Relating marker feedback to teaching and learning in psychology. In C. Candler and G. Plum (Eds.). Researching Academic Literacies NCELTR, Macquarie University, pp. 147-209.

Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environment: a computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24(4), 491-501.
Sullivan, D., Brown, C., & Nielson, N. L. (1998). Computer-mediated peer review of student papers. Journal of Education Business, 74(2), 117-121.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: a typology. British Education Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.
Tuzi, F. (2001, February). E-feedback’s impact on ESL writers’ revisions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of other Language (TESOL), St. Louis.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.
Uttendorfer, M. (2003). Building interactive content in an online course: making it more than page turning. http://www.campus-technology.com/conf/prcdngs.asp
Van der Geest, T., & Remmers, T. (1994). The computers as a means of communication for peer review groups. Computers and Composition, 11, 237-250.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ware, P., & Warshauer, M. (2005). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.) Feedback and second language writing (pp. 1-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and study strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Company.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Chien, Feng-yi, Liu, A., Tsao, N. L. (2001). A web-based EFL writing environment: integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers & Education, 37, 297-315.
Williamson, M. L. & Pence, P. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In B. K. Briten & S. M. Glynn(Eds.), Computer writing environments: theory, Research, and design (pp. 96-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Wiltse E. M. (2001). The effects of motivation and anxiety on students’ use of instructor comments. ED458630.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.
Zellermayer, M. (1989). The study of teachers’ written feedback to students’ writing: changes in theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts. Instructional Science, 18(2), 145-165.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔