跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.185.78) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/30 00:30
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳珈璘
研究生(外文):Chia-Ling Chen
論文名稱:評量規準對進行大學生同儕寫作回饋之效能研究
論文名稱(外文):Effects of the Use of Rubric Implemented for Peer Review in EFL College Writing Class
指導教授:中澤一亮中澤一亮引用關係
指導教授(外文):Kazuaki Nakazawa
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:元智大學
系所名稱:應用外語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:英文
論文頁數:167
中文關鍵詞:同儕評鑑評量規準英文寫作
外文關鍵詞:Peer ReviewRubricEnglish Writing
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:293
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:2
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
隨著重要的理論,社會文化理論(social nature of learning),協同學習理(collaborative language learning),以及過程寫作理論(process writing approach),同儕英文寫作評論(peer review)已在英語為第二外語(ESL)及英語為外國語言的國家(EFL)受到重視。有許多研究指出同儕評論在英文寫作的益處,然而,因為有些評語太過模糊,且同儕的程度不一,導致部份學生對同儕評語抱著負面的態度。傳統的同儕回饋是學生被給予一些提示問題(guiding questions),用來引導評論同儕的文章。然而,這樣的方式或許無法保證學生了解一篇好的寫作應有的標準,且無法知道學生是否能給予有助益的評語。評量規準(rubric)有一系列用以判斷的標準(explicit criteria),每個標準依表現分出等級(levels of qualities),且每個等級都會有文字描述(related-performance descriptions),因此它在許多教學環境下已被用於評量學生的學習表現。然而,對於運用評量規準在同儕寫作評論的影響這部份研究較少。此外,較少文獻探討評量規準對於評語及文章修改的影響。因此,為了提升同儕評論的效用,本研究探討評量表對於同儕英語寫作回饋的效用。
本研究對象為40位兩班大二英語寫作的學生。在同儕回饋教學中,實驗組被給予評量規準(rubric),而對照組給予評論單(peer-editing worksheet)。每個學生在此研究前和研究後需完成兩篇課堂上的英文寫作及兩份問卷。此外,學生需完成三回合寫作的初稿及完稿。在同儕回饋進行中,兩組學生需利用所屬的輔助工具提供寫作評語,且作者需針對同儕給予的評語進行文章修改。兩組的同儕評語、文章修改部份、英文寫作表現、 及對同儕回饋的看法都是本研究的重點。
研究結果顯示如下:第一,利用評量規準進行同儕回饋的學生能更致力於此活動,且能提供較多的評語在寫作內容及組織上;此外,學生也能試著解釋本身的想法及給予具體的評語;相較之下,利用評論單的學生則傾向找出同儕的寫作文法問題。第二,大多數的學生都會參考同儕的意見進行文章修改;然而,實驗組的文章修改,不單侷限在寫作文法上,也會注重深層意涵的表現;而對照組的學生,則多只進行文法修正。第三,在學生的初稿與完稿發現,實驗組的學生在文章修改上,作文的內容組織都能有顯著的提升,而另一組則主要在文法上有所進步。第四,根據前測及後測的比較,兩組學生在寫作能力上都有所增進。最後,大多數的受試者皆對同儕回饋持肯定的看法,且實驗組的同學大都支持,透過評量規準,他們更能了解寫作應有的標準,且在評論同儕文章時,能較有信心的表達看法。
本研究顯示,在作文教學中,透過評量規準進行同儕回饋時,教師可更清楚表達他們對寫作的要求,且同時強調作文語法及整體意涵的重要性。此外,在進行同儕互評時,學生能有機會聆聽對方的想法,且加以闡述自己的意見。未來也建議評量規準能針對不同的寫作類型及目的來設計,且研究也能包含更多不同背景的受試者,用來更進一步證實評量規準在進行同儕回饋之效用。
Prevalent supportive theories including the social nature of learning, collaborative language learning, and the process writing approach have in turn led to increased attention on peer reviewing within ESL and EFL classrooms. A large number of studies support the effectiveness of peer evaluation (Berg, 1999; de Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Mangelsdor, 1992; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Paulus; 1999); however, comment vagueness and doubts concerning language proficiency have resulted in some L2 students expressing negative reactions towards using peer feedback in their classes.
Traditionally, students were asked to evaluate peer writing examples according to a list of guiding questions. However, this was not sufficient enough to ensure that students understood the criteria for good writing and learned how to provide constructive suggestions.
In comparison, rubrics are designed according to explicit criteria, multiple levels of quality, and related-performance descriptions; they are used to evaluate students’ academic performance in many educational settings (Andrade & Du, 2005; Hafner & Hafner, 2003; Petkov & Petkova; 2006; Schamber & Mahoney; 2006). Nevertheless, only a few researchers have investigated the impact of rubrics on peer review activities (Rothschild & Klingenberg, 1990; Wyngaard & Gehrke, 1996). In addition, little is known about how the quality of comments offered or students’ revisions are influenced by rubrics. In order to increase from the beneficial aspects associated with peer review activities, the present study explores the effects of peer feedback using clear criteria and detailed explanations of writing quality (i.e., rubrics) during the peer review sessions.
The participants were 40 Taiwanese sophomore students enrolled in two English writing classes at a private university. The experimental group (EG) was exposed to the rubric, while the control group (CG) was given a traditional worksheet to use during the peer review training. All participants were asked to complete two timed writing tasks and two questionnaires before and after the training, which included three writing cycles of drafting. Each participant provided comments based on their assigned tool, and all students revised their drafts based on the peer feedback. The quality of the peer comments, the language aspects of the revisions, the students’ multiple-writing performances, and their perceptions of peer evaluation are the main focuses in the present study.
The results reveal that the EG was more engaged in the task and provided more global-based comments, as well as local-level comments; further, they were also more likely to explain their opinions and give specific suggestions. However, the CG tended to focus on students’ surface level problems, and emphasized grammatical accuracy. Furthermore, students from both groups tended to incorporate their peers’ suggestions into their texts. EG were likely to make meaning-level revisions, while, CG made changes on grammar errors. Therefore, the findings show that the EG students’ revised drafts showed improvement in both content and organization; however, the CG students mainly progressed in terms of form. As well, the students’ overall quality in terms of English writing was enhanced in both groups. The questionnaire also showed that most participants responded positively to the peer review activity. However, the students in the experimental group found that using the rubric allowed them to better understand the writing quality criteria and grow in confidence in terms of communicating their opinions and evaluating others’ writing.
It is recommended that instructors utilize rubrics to clearly express their writing expectations and highlight the importance of global as well as local perspectives in writing. In this way, students can also have the chance to consider peer suggestions and clarify their writing during peer review activities. Future studies may consider rubrics designed for different rhetorical modes. Also, additional participants from heterogeneous backgrounds should be included to validate the effectiveness of using rubrics for English writing peer review activities.
CHINESE ABSTRACT i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LISTS OF TABLES xi
LISTS OF FIGURES xiii
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODCUTION
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 6
1.3 Significance of the Study 7
1.4 Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1 Overview 10
2.2 Review of Studies on the Effects of Peer
Review in ESL and EFLWriting 10
2.2.1 Theoretical Justification of Peer Review… 11
2.2.2 Empirical Studies on the Effectiveness of
Peer Review 15
2.2.3 Empirical Studies on the Peer Review
for Revision 18
2.2.4 Empirical Studies on the Limitation of Peer Review 21
2.2.5 The Importance of Peer Review Training
in the ESL and EFL Writing Context 25
2.3 Review of Studies on the Effects of Rubrics 28
2.3.1 Introduction of Rubric 28
2.3.2 Empirical Studies on the Instructional
Benefits of Rubrics 30
2.3.3 Empirical Studies on the Use of Rubrics
in Writing 36
CHAPTER THREE. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Overview 42
3.2 Pilot Study 43
3.3 Participants 44
3.4 Setting 46
3.5 Instructional Design 46
3.5.1 Writing Assignments 46
3.5.2 Peer Review Training and the Treatment 47
3.5.2.1 The Rubric and Peer-editing Worksheet 49
3.5.2.2 Peer Review Training 50
3.6 Materials 53
3.6.1 Proficiency tests 54
3.6.2 A Coding Scheme for Written Comments 54
3.6.3 A Four-criterion Coding System for
Written Comments 55
3.6.4 A Coding System for Revisions 55
3.6.5 The Questionnaire 56
3.6.6 Raters 57
3.7 Data Collection Procedures 57
3.7.1 Pretest and Posttest Writing 57
3.7.2 Peer Review Session 58
3.7.3 Data Collection 62
3.8 Data Analyses 63
CHAPTER FOUR. RESEARCH RESULTS
4.1 Overview 65
4.2 Results 66
4.2.1 Student Learning Process Data 67
4.2.1.1 Types of Written Comments 67
4.2.1.2 Revisions on the Three Take-home Writing
Assignments 75
4.2.2 Student Learning Product Data 81
4.2.2.1 Comparison of Writing Performance
between First and Revised Drafts 81
4.2.2.2 Pre-test and Post-test Findings 87
4.2.3 Student Perceptual Data 90
4.2.3.1 Background Questionnaire 90
4.2.3.2 Evaluation Questionnaire 93
4.2.4 Summarized Findings 103
CHAPTER FIVE. DISSCUSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion 104
5.1.1 Comment Differences between the Two Groups 104
5.1.2 Revisions According to Different
Language Aspects 108
5.1.3 The Impact of Peer Review on Students’
Writing Performance 112
5.1.4 Student Perceptions of Peer Reviewing 117
5.1.5 One Instructor’s Views on the Rubric 122
5.2 Summary of the Findings and Conclusions 125
5.3 Pedagogical Implications 128
5.4 Limitations of the Study 130
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 131

REFERENCES 134
APPENDICES
Appendix A Rubric 142
Appendix B Peer-editing Worksheet 145
Appendix C A Coding Scheme for Written Comments 146
Appendix D A Four-criterion Coding System
for Written Comments 147
Appendix E A Coding System for Revisions 148
Appendix F The Background Questionnaire 152
Appendix G The Evaluation Questionnaire
(The ExperimentalGroup) 154
Appendix H The Evaluation Questionnaire
(The Control Group) 157
Appendix I Results of the Background Questionnaire 161
Appendix J Results of the Evaluation Questionnaire 163
Andrade, H. G. (1999). The role of instructional rubrics and self-assessment in learning to write: A smorgasbord of findings. In Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 1-7.

Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27-30.

Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubrics-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-34.

Andrade, H. G., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1-11.

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classrooms: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of training peer response on ESL students'' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.

Berkenkotter, C. (1984). Student writers and their sense of authority over texts. College Composition and Communication, 35(3), 312-319.

Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through class assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-149.

Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161-180.

Brown, G. T. L., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9, 105-121.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and "conversation of mankind." College English, 46(7), 635-652.

Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student response to written work. TESOL
Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.

Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students'' composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15, 1-14.

Chen, B. L. (2004). A comparative study of teacher evaluation and peer evaluation on the English writing of senior high school students. Thesis (M.A.) distributed by National Kaoshiung University.

Chien, C. W. (2005). Effects of online peer response on EFL college writing. Thesis (M.A.) distributed by Tsing Hua University.

Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing form instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891-901.

Chur-Hansen, A., & Vernon-Roberts, J. (2000). The evaluation of undergraduate students'' written English language skills. Medical Education, 34(8), 642-647.

Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). Prentice Hall.

Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.

de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.

Ewell, P. T. (2002).An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. In T. W. Banta (Ed.), Building a scholarship of assessment. Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revisions. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.

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). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.

Flateby, T. L. (2005). Maximizing campus responsibility for the writing assessment process. Assessment Matters, 9(6), 22-25.

Foltz, K. (2007). Motivate first-grade writers by providing choices and clear expectations. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 35(3), 14-22.

Freedman, W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(1), 71-106.

Garcia, P. (2006). Involving graduate teaching assists in freshman composition in rubrics implementation. Assessment Update, 18(6), 12-13.

George, D. (1984). Writing with peer groups in composition. College Composition and Communication, 35(3), 320-336.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of
Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.

Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL
writing conference. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460.

Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1509–1528.

Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky''s zone of proximal development and problem-based learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263-272.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

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.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity, and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130-144.

Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44, 294-304.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issue in written response. In B. Kroll(Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.57-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-217.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances,
functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605-655.

Luft, J. (1997). Design your own rubric. Science Scope, 20(5), 25-27.

Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubrics: Lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 673-679.

Mangelsodorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.

Mangelsodorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235-254.
Mendonҫa, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.

Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25). [ Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25].

Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and Learning, 27(3), 85–103.

Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.

Montgomery, K. (2002). Authentic tasks and rubrics: Going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34-39.

Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring Rubrics: What, When, and How? Practical Assessment, Reseaerch & Evaluation, 7(3) [Available online: http:// pareonline.net/ getvn.asp? V=7&n=3].

Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students'' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimension.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171-193.

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer
comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.

Nitko, A. J. (2001). Educational assessment of students (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Merrill.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th Ed.). New York: Longman.

Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.

Petkov, D., & Petkov, O. (2006). Development of scorning rubrics for IS projects as an assessment tool. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 499-510.
Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong- and what’s right- with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72-75.

Reddy, Y. M. (2007). Effect of rubrics on enhancement of student learning. Educate, 7(1), 3-17.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on errors and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.

Rothschild, D., & Klingenberg, F. (1990). Self and peer evaluation of writing in the interactive ESL classroom: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal, 8(1), 52-65.

Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric: Instructional rubrics can help students become self-regulated writers. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48-52.

Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.

Schafer, W. D., Swanson, G., Bené, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(2), 151-170.

Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L. (2006). Assessing and improving the quality of group critical thinking exhibited in the final project of collaborative learning groups. The Journal of General Education, 55(2), 103-137.

Schirmer, B. R., Bailey, J., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1999). Using a writing assessment rubric for writing development of children who are deaf. Exceptional Children, 65(3), 383–397.

Semke, H. D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.

Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.

Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.

Tang, G. M., & Tithecott, T. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16, 20-38.

Taylor, B. (1981). Content and written form: A two-year street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 21-36.

The ACT Writing Test. (2008). [Available online: http://www.act.org/aap/writing/index.html].

The UCLA ESL Placement Exam Rubric. (1991). CA: University of California, Los Angeles.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing class. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefic from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.

Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Wyngaard, S., & Gehrke, R. (1996). Responding to audience: Using rubrics to teach and assess writing. The English Journal, 85(6), 67-70.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students'' comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492-528.

Ziv, N. D. (1984). The effect of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen. In R. Beach & L. S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 362-380). New York: Guilford Press.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top