跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 17:14
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:吳慧婷
研究生(外文):Hui-ting Wu
論文名稱:透過任務導向的閱讀及寫作教學法提升國中學生的寫作能力之研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study of Enhancing Junior High School Students’ Writing Performance through Task-based Reading-to-Writing Instruction
指導教授:陳璧清陳璧清引用關係
指導教授(外文):Pi-ching Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系專班
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:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:英文
論文頁數:205
中文關鍵詞:摘要寫作腦力激盪任務導向同儕互評
外文關鍵詞:Brainstorming-summary writingTask-based activityPeer-reviewing
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:253
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
本研究旨在探討國中生在接受任務導向的閱讀寫作的指導下,他們的寫作能力及對閱讀寫作的態度是否有受到摘要寫作及同儕修改的共同學習的影響而有進步。
這份個案研究主要是以實際教學及問卷方式進行。在教學方面,因為是以台南市某一所國中的三十位國中二年級學生為主要研究對象。在閱讀指導方面,學生所閱讀的指定書本是綠野仙蹤(The Wizard of Oz)。學生必須在家中先閱讀。在整個閱讀課程後,學生們便開始摘要寫作。在這活動中,學生要試著將他們舊有的知識及新學的寫作技巧加以融合並進而用他們的話來重新表達所閱讀的故事情節。在批改方面,教師要引導學生如何去修改和欣賞同儕的作品,期許學生能在其中見賢思齊,見不賢而內自省。最後,為達到客觀性,學生的兩次長篇摘要藉助一個線上評分系統以比較學生在接受這些課程之前及之後的差別。在資料收集方面,在閱讀及寫作課程中所進行的所有單字考試還有學生在閱讀及寫作問卷(SORWA)的結果都被收集來分析且比較學生在接受這整個課程之前及之後的成績和態度的差異。

本研究的主要發現如下:
1.只要學生有時間及機會練習新單字,他們便可能運用新字更好而且記的更久。
2.學生如果能使用到適合他們程度的書本,他們會學習更多且更有信心。
3.學生認為透過閱讀指導,他們閱讀表現是可以提升的。
4.學生發現寫作活動增強了他們的閱讀效率及語言的使用能力。
5.學生認為同儕修改活動可以提升他們的寫作能力及英語學習的效率。
6.任務導向的教學及合作學習對於閱讀,寫作及同儕修改都非常有用。

根據研究所得到的結果發現到任務導向的摘要寫作教學對於提升學生的寫作能力的確有幫助。此外,學生對於寫作的態度變的更正面,而在經由同儕修改的合作學習中,學生變的更主動學習。
This study is to explore the junior high school students’ writing performance and learning attitudes after taking task-based reading-to-writing instructions through summary writing and peer reviewing.
This qualitative-quantitative study includes an experimental teaching and a questionnaire survey. The subjects were 30 junior high school students. The storybook, the Wizard of Oz, was chosen. After reading courses, summary writing was applied to encourage learners to restate the story. Peer reviewing was implemented to encourage learners to appreciate others’ work as well as learn some other writing skills. An online assessment system was also used to know the improvement of their writing performance. In the data collection, all the vocabulary tests were collected. Learners’ response toward the questionnaire, SORWA, was also gathered to know the difference of their attitudes. The findings from the study were: (1) the more opportunities to practice new words, the better performance to manipulate new words; (2) learners can benefit more from an appropriate textbook; (3) under the task-based reading instructions, the reading performance can be enhanced; (4) writing activities can enhance reading efficiency and the ability to manipulate words; (5) peer reviewing can enhance writing ability and effectiveness of English language learning; (6) task-based instructions and collaborative learning are both useful in each session of reading, writing, and peer-reviewing.
In conclusion, the findings of the study certified that the use of task-based reading-to-writing activities would improve EFL learners’ writing abilities, and that the attitudes towards writing could become more positive and autonomous through the writing activities with peer reviewing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i
Abstract (Chinese) ii
Abstract (English) iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Motivation 1
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 6
Limitation of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 10

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Integration of Reading and Writing 12
The Nature of Reading 12
Reading Skills and Strategies 14
The Nature of Writing 17
Composing Process 19
Some Writing Approaches 19
Summary Writing 21
Connection of Reading and Writing 23
Reading to Writing 24
Writing to Reading 25
Task-based Activities 26
Advantages of Task-based Activity 33
Disadvantage of Task-based Activities 35
Suggestions for Task-based Activities 36
Peer Reviewing 38
Advantages of Peer Reviewing 38
Disadvantages of Peer Reviewing 43
Suggestions for Peer Reviewing 45
Overview 46

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 51
Subjects 51
Instruction 53
Overview 54
Materials 62
Instruction Procedures 67
Measurements 79
Scoring 80
Questionnaires 83
Analyzing the Results 85

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 86
1. The Learning Performances of the Target Words in the Reading Program and in the
Writing Program 88
Question 1 88
1.1 Vocabulary Learning Performance in the Reading Course 90
1.2 Vocabulary Learning Performance in the Writing Course 91
1.3 Mean Score (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) for Each Vocabulary Test 92
Discussion 97
2. Responses to the Questionnaires 100
Question 2 100
Discussion 107
Question 3 108
Discussion 114
Question 4 115
Discussion 116
Question 5 120
3. Results of the Writing Performances 120
Question 6 120
Overview 122

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS CONTRIBUTIONS & SUGGESTIONS 125
Introduction 125
Conclusions 125
Contributions 128
Suggestions 130

REFERENCES 132

APPENDIXES
Appendix A : The Consent for the Subjects 150
Appendix B : Class Schedule 151
Appendix C : Before Reading-Target Words/ Phrases/ Structures 154
Appendix D : While Reading-Tests 178
Appendix E : After Reading-Peer Discussion 185
Appendix F : While Writing-Tests 188
Appendix G : Evaluation Form 195
Appendix H : Discourse Markers 196
Appendix I : Brainstorming & Mind Map 197
Appendix J : Writing Sheet 198
Appendix K : One Example of the First Draft without Writing Instructions 199
Appendix L : One Example of the Last Draft under Writing Instructions 200
Appendix M : Survey Questionnaire 201
Appendix N : Permission Letter for Use of the SETA 204
Appendix O : Permission Letter for Use of the SORWA 205
REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1991). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001). Enhancing critical reading and writing through peer reviews: An exploration of assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29(1), 23-35.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in second language reading strategies. Paper presented at TESOL Conference, New York.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth grader’s summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 297-306.
Beyer, B. K. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it? Sorial Education, 49, 270-276.
Block, D. (2002). ‘McCommunication’: A problem in the frame for SLA. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalisation and language teaching (pp. 117-133). London: Routledge.
Boughey, C. (1997). Learning to write by writing to learn: A group-work approach. ELT Journal, 51(2), 126-135.
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher-to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 87-107.
Britton, J. (1978). The composing processes and the functions of writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp.85-103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Bruton, A. (2002). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(3), 280-288.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). London: Heinemann.
Carrell, P. L. (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 1-6). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1989). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 553-573). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student response to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Teaching English as a second or froeign language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: What student writers take from model texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 88-125.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills theory and practice (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Chen, C. Y. (2006). An exploratory study of how EFL junior high school students develop L2 literacy through task-based reading-to-writing instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Chen, P. C. (1995). How to close link reading with writing: An integrated instructional approach for the college English reading classes. Selected Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 338-362). Taipei: Crane.
Chern, C. (2003). Active learning: Reading, writing, and thinking in EFL classes. Taipei: Taiwan ELT.
Chi, F. M. (1999). Reading-to-write as an intertextual process: Perspectives on topic development. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 241-252). Taipei: Crane.
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.
Chou, P. Y. (2007). An empirical research on developing young EFL learners’ L2 literacy through task-based reading-to-writing instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of vocabulary acquisition with hands-on concordancing. [Electronic version]. Computer Assisted Language Learning 12, 345-360. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r21270/cv/Breadth.htm
Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1980). A framework for a cognitive theory of writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 51-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Courtney, M. (1988). Tasks, talk and teaching: Task-based language learning and the negotiation of meaning in oral interaction. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://repository.ust.hk/dspace/bitstream/1783.1/1054/1/MikeVIVAFINAa.pdf
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2). 213-238.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 22, 365-387.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126-135). Oxford: Heinemann.
Foster, P. (1999). Task-based learning and pedagogy. ELT Journal, 53, 69-70.
Foster, P., & Shehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20.
Garrigus, R. (1999). Design in reading: An introduction to critical reading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gocsik, K. (1997). Teaching writing through literature. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cinoise/faculty/pedagogies/thinking.html
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135.
Goodman, K. S. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (Eds.), The psychology of second language learning (pp. 135-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gove, M. K. (1983). Clarifying teacher’s beliefs about reading. The Reading Teacher, 37, 75-96.
Grant, M. H. (1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer editing groups. The English Journal, 76(3), 40-45.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. London: Prentice-Hall International Limited.
Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 90-103.
Guo, I. J. (2006). Implementing a task-based approach with senior high school students: Characteristics of interactions and students’ perceptions. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24(1), 43-60.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. English Language Teaching Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Hare, V. C. (1992). Summarizing text. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 96-118). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of communicative language teaching (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated writers. Theory into Practice, 41, 110-115.
Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Heller, M. (1980). The reading-writing connection: An analysis of the written language of university freshmen at two reading levels. (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 44-52.
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.
Horowitz, D. (1988). To see our text as others see it: Toward a social sense of coherence. JALT Journal, 10 (2), 91-100.
Huber, J. A. (2004). A closer look at SQ3R. Reading Improvement, 41, 108-112.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2006). When thinking skills trump reading skills. Educational Leadership. 64(2), 16-21.
Janopoulos, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 247-265.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revised. In B. Conner & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Ken, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44, 294-304.
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-149.
King, M. L. (1978). Research in composition: A need for theory. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 193-202.
Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 67-85.
Kos, R., & Maslowski, C. (2001). Second graders’ perceptions of what is important in writing. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 567-584.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and application. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
Lee, J. F. (1995). Using task-based activities to restructure class discussions. Foreign Language Annal, 28, 437-446.
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.
Littlejohn, A. P. (1982). Teacherless language learning groups: An experiment. Unpublished MS, Department of Linguistics, Lancaster University.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Liu, J., Pysarchik, D. T., & Taylor, W. W. (2002). Peer review in the classroom. Bioscience, 52(9), 824-829.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam & Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing decond language learning (pp. 77-100). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Maters.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 259-278). Rowley: Newbury House.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vorman, R. (1990). Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 9, 161-209.
Lynch, D. (1982). Easing the process: A strategy for evaluating compositions. College Composition and Communication, 33(3), 310-314.
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.
Machado de Almeida Mattos, A. (2000). A Vygotskian approach to evaluation in foreign language learning contexts. ELT Journal, 54, 335-345.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 13-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. (1984). The effects of different discourse types on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121-143.
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.
Moffat, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton.
Moffett, J., & Wagner, B. (1968). Student-centered language arts and reading. (K-13, 2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85-103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comment in writing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279-295.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle/Thomson Learning.
Nunan, D. (2001). Aspects of task-based syllabus design. The English Centre, University of Hong Kong.
Nunan, D. (2005). Practical English language teaching: Grammar. New York: McGraw Hill.
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Heinemann.
Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29, 357-370.
Ogden, L. (2000). Collaborative tasks, collaborative children: An analysis of reciprocity during peer interaction at key stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2). 211-226.
Paesani, K. (2005). Literary texts and grammar instruction: Revisiting the inductive presentation. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 15-24.
Pauk, W. (1998). How the SQ3R came to be. Paper presented at the College Reading Association Conference.
Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of groupwork in classroom SLA. Studies in SLA, 7, 233-248.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crooks & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-30.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100-106.
Reder, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 121-134.
Reid, J. M. (1993a). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reid, J. M. (1993b). Historical perspectives on writing and reading in the ESL classroom. In J. G. Carson & I. L. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 33-60). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: RELC.
Robinson, F. P. (1946). Effective study. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23-30.
Rosenblatt, L. (1988). Writing and reading: The transactional theory. Reader, 20, 7-31.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attetntion and performance, 1, (pp. 573-603). New York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. E. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sarig, G. (1993). Composing a study-summary: A reading/writing encounter. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 161-182). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. English Language Teaching, 53(3), 149-156.
Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 127-151.
Sherrard, C. (1989). Teaching students to summarize: Applying textlinguistics. System, 17, 1-11.
Silberstein, S. (1993). Techniques and resources in teaching reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17-30). Heineman.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Sommers, N. (1979). The need for theory in composition research. College Composition and Communication, 30, 46-49.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Stoller, F. L. (2002). Content-based instruction: A shell for language teaching or a framework for strategic language and content learning? Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/strategies/stoller.html
Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642.
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, 134-169.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Walz, J. (1998). Meeting standards for foreign language learning with World Wide Web activities. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 103-114.
Wesche, M., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative teaching, task-based and content-based language instruction. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
West, M. (1953). General service list, In J. Bauman & B. Culligan (1995), About the GSL. Retrieved November 6, 2004, from http://jbauman.com/gsl.html
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 235-256). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 172-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153-189). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Woodward, J. C., & Phillips, A. (1976). Profile of the poor writer�{the relationship of selected characteristics to poor writing in college. Research in the Teaching of English, 1, 41-53.
Wu, C. C. (2002). A case study of the rhetorical analysis via expository models on Taiwanese freshmen’s English compositions. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Xu, N. X. (2005). The impacts of the Internet task-basked activity on the development of students' reading and writing ability in an elementary school classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Zhou, Y. H. (2006). Task-based approach and its application in classroom English teaching & learning. Sino-Us English Teaching, 3.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top