跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.95.131.146) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/26 03:44
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:黃伊嘉
研究生(外文):I-Chia Huang
論文名稱:探討大學生如何運用文意協商完成拼圖式任務: 面對面對談及MSN對談
論文名稱(外文):Meaning Negotiation via Jigsaw Tasks for EFL Learning: Face-to-Face and MSN Communication
指導教授:紀鳳鳴紀鳳鳴引用關係
指導教授(外文):Feng-Ming Chi
口試委員:張芳琪陳玟君
口試委員(外文):Fang-Chi ChangWen-Chun Chen
口試日期:2012-03-12
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:外國語文研究所
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:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:118
中文關鍵詞:拼圖式任務面對面對談MSN對談文意協商
外文關鍵詞:Jigsaw Taskface-to-face communicationMSN communicationmeaning negotiation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:282
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:50
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
過去研究指出文意協商有助於語言能力的提升;拼圖式任務往往能提供參與者大量協商的機會。已知目前有不少文獻探討拼圖式任務對語言學習的幫助,但卻很少有文獻以人際心理的觀點來探討拼圖式任務中的文意協商,以及對談媒介對其文意協商的影響。本研究旨在探究以英語為外語的台灣大學生如何透過兩種不同的對談媒介來進行文意協商,進而完成拼圖式任務。本研究標的有三:參與者如何運用文意協商以達成兩種 (面對面對談及MSN對談) 拼圖式任務;意見協商如何影響其大意寫作;學生對兩種不同拼圖式任務的看法。參與者為14位台灣大學生。學生志願參與並以兩人為一組;總數為七組。每組學生皆完成兩次拼圖式任務,一次任務透過面對面對談完成,另一次透過MSN對談完成。每次的拼圖式任務皆需進行小組討論及大意寫作。兩次任務完成後,每組參與者接受研究者訪談。所有口說資料均轉錄為逐字稿。資料收集主要包含每組兩種對談媒介進行討論的逐字稿、每位參與者之兩篇大意寫作,以及訪談的逐字稿。研究發現小組的互動模式分為兩種:一對一及多對多;討論模式分為五種:提供意見、描述、探問、語言協助,以及請求說明。拼圖式任務的對談媒介的確對小組互動及討論有其影響。此外,兩種拼圖式任務的大意寫作皆顯示學生與同儕的密切共助關係,而且結果亦同時呈現小組間的差異。任務過程中所遇到的困難以及小組的討論特色皆為影響此差異的主要原因。最後,學生們肯定拼圖式任務中的對談對語言學習的幫助,同時也表達對於拼圖式任務透過面對面對談方式的喜愛。本研究並提供教學一些教學建議及未來研究導向。
Research has shown that meaning negotiation for communication breakdown facilitates language learning, and jigsaw tasks can provide the context for significant amounts of this. While there is a considerable general literature on jigsaw tasks and language learning, there are few specific investigations on the mediation and negotiation that occur with such tasks in terms of interpsychological processes. This study was undertaken to explore how paired EFL learners bridged information gaps to carry out jigsaw tasks via two types of mediation (MSN and face-to-face communication), and its relation to their task outcomes. Three research questions guided this study: How did the participants negotiate meaning via two different types of jigsaw tasks, FTF and MSN? In what ways did the meaning negotiation via jigsaw tasks impact the participants’ summary writings? And how did they perceive the two types of jigsaw tasks as ways of learning? Fourteen Taiwanese university students, forming seven dyads, volunteered to participate in the study. Each dyad was required to complete two jigsaw tasks, one via MSN and FTF. Each jigsaw task was approached with dyadic discussion and individual summary writing. All the dyads were interviewed after they had completed both of the jigsaw tasks. Data sources included each dyad’s discussions of the two jigsaw tasks, individual summary writings for each jigsaw, and semi-structured oral interview. Two interaction patterns (one-by-one and one-to-one) and five discussion patterns (stating opinions, describing, probing, assisting in language, and requesting clarification) emerged from the results. Jigsaw mediation, FTF and MSN, did play a role in dyadic interaction and discussion. Summary writings showed evidence of the participants’ collaboration for the two jigsaw tasks, but the dyads were shown to work together in different ways. The specific features of discussion a dyad had mainly affected their summary writings. Finally, the participants valued the dyadic discussion in the jigsaw tasks as a way of language learning, and expressed their preference for the FTF jigsaw tasks. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research are also provided.
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter One: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Rationale for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Task-Based Language Teaching as a Focus for Second Language Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
The Characteristics of Jigsaw Tasks . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Face-to-Face Communication and MSN Communication . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Importance of Meaning Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Interaction and Negotiation of Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Comprehensible Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Output Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Interaction Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Importance of Meaning Negotiation in Second Language Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Meaning Negotiation to Bridge Information Gaps in Tasks. . . . . . . . . 18
Role of Mediation in Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mediation through Jigsaw Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Mediation through Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Research on Jigsaw Tasks in Face-to-Face Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Research on Jigsaw Tasks in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Summary Writing to Enhance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Applications of Summary Writing in Empirical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Summary of Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Chapter Three: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Research Setting and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Step 1: Practice for MSN and FTF Jigsaw Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Practice MSN Jigsaw Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Practice FTF Jigsaw Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Step 2: Formal Data Collection Using MSN and FTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Formal MSN Jigsaw Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Formal FTF Jigsaw Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Step 3: Semi-structured Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Analysis of MSN and FTF Discussion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Analysis of Summary Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Analysis of Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Summary of Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter Four: Results and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Findings at Two Levels: Macro/Micro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Macro Level: One-by-One vs. One-to-One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Mediation Affected Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Pictures Affected Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Micro Level: Five Patterns of Jigsaw Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Minor Role of Assisting in Language and Requesting Clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
Mediation Affected Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Characteristics of Participants Affected Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Dynamics of Interpersonal Communication Affected Summary Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Dyad 3’s Stories were Different from those of the Other Dyads . . . . . 69
Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Overall Reflection on the Jigsaw Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Preferences for the Jigsaw Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Summary of Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Pedagogical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Suggestions for Future Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix A: Guideline (Chinese version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Appendix B: Guideline (English version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Appendix C: Practice MSN Jigsaw Task (Not My Day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix D: Practice FTF Jigsaw Task (Mother’s Birthday Present) . . . . . 98
Appendix E: Formal MSN Jigsaw Task (The Poor Man) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix F: Formal FTF Jigsaw Task (The Cork) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Appendix G: Interview Questions (Chinese version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendix H: Interview Questions (English version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Appendix I: Table of the Five Discussion Patterns in the MSN Jigsaw Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103
Appendix J: Table of the Five Discussion Patterns in the FTF Jigsaw Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
104
Appendix K: Conventions for Data-transcribing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix L: Sample Transcript of MSN Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Appendix M: Sample Transcript of FTF Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Abe, Y. (2011). The effect of computer-mediated communication on Japanese EFL learners’ English proficiency. TCC 2011 Proceedings, 169-185. Retrieved September 21, 2011, from http://etec.hawaii.edu/proceedings/2011/Abe.pdf
Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research on new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 181-210). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Adam, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adams, R. & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 1-17.
Arslanyilmaz, A. & Pedersen, S. (2010). Enhancing negotiation of meaning through task familiarity using subtitled videos in an online TBLL environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 64-77.
Bean, T. W. & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 297-306.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136.
Blake, R. (2005). Bimodal chatting: The glue of a distance language learning course. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 497-511.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown, J., Hudson, T., Norris, J., & Bonk, W. (2002). An investigation of second language task-based performance assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 141-152.
Chen, A. H. (2009). An action research of exploring the effect of story summarizing on English writing class. Hsiuping Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13, 173-192.
Chi, F-M. (2007). Small-group text talk: Examples from Taiwanese EFL students. Language, Literature Studies and International Studies: An International Journal, 4, 33-47.
Chi, F-M. (2010). Reflection as teaching inquiry: Examples from Taiwanese in-service teachers’. Reflective Practice, 11(2), 171-183.
Colina, A. A., & Mayo, M. (2006). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91-116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Coskun, A. (2011). Investigation of the application of communicative language teaching in the English language classroom: A case study on teachers’ attitude in Turkey. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 2(1), 1-23.
Coulson, D. (2005). Collaborative tasks for cross-cultural communication. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 127-138). N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillam.
DeFilippo, J., Skidmore, C., & Walker, M. (1984). Skill Sharpeners 2: For ESL secondary students. Taipei, TW: Crane.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fang, X. U. (2010). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition. Cross-cultural Communication, 6(1), 11-17.
Feryok, A. (2008). An Armenian English language teacher’s practical theory of communicative language teaching. System, 36, 227-240.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.
Gardill, M.& Jitendra, A. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, R. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611.
Ghabanchi, Z. & Mirza, F. H. (2010). The effect of summarization on intermediate EFL learners’ reading comprehension and their performance on display, referential and inferential questions. Journal of College Teaching and Learning,
Gnadinger, C. M. (2008). Peer-mediated instruction: Assisted performance in the primary classroom. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 129-142.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105-121.
Heyer, S. (1989). Picture stories for beginning communication. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hiep, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201.
Hung, Y. (2009). Linking theory to practice: Implementation of CLT by Taiwanese university teachers of English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: Indiana University.
Kenning, M. (2010). Collaborative scaffolding in online task-based voice interactions between advanced learners. ReCALL, 22(2), 135-151.
Kirkland, M. & Saunders, M. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 105-121.
Klippel, F. (1984). Keep talking: Communicative fluency activities for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ko, J., Schallert, D., & Walters, K. (2003). Rethinking scaffolding: Examining negotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 303-324.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issue and Implications. New York: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). The name of the task and the task of naming: Methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Task in a pedagogical context (pp. 69-96). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
Lantolf, J. P, & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leaver, B., & Willis, J. (2004). Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244.
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635-649.
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning and Technology, 12(3), 53-72.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Ma, A. (2008). A practical guide to a task-based curriculum: Planning, grammar teaching, and assessment. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magnan, S. S. (2007). Reconsidering communicative language teaching for national goals. Modern Language Journal, 91, 249-252.
Mangubhai, F. Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J. (2007). Framing communicative language teaching for better teacher understanding. Issues in Educational Researcher, 17, 85-106.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207-224.
McDougall, J. (2007). Engaging the visual generation: Some Queensland teachers come to terms with changing literacies. Screen Education, 46, 130-137.
Meng, J. (2010). Jigsaw cooperative learning in English reading. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(4), 501-504.
Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 5(12). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_08/article02.htm
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 227- 251.
Otero, R. C. (2008). Integration information processes form multiple documents. Retrieved December, 2011, from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=7205&info=resumen&modo=popu
Pan, Y. E. (2008). Faculty members’ attitudes and concerns about communicative language teaching implementation in general English courses in Taiwan Universities. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: The University of Minnesota.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridege: CUP.
Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303-321.
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3-21.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pick, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In G. Grookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301-338.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189-207.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: RELC.
Riva, G. (2002). The sociocognitive psychology of computer-mediated communication: The present and future of technology-based interactions. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 581-598.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndsmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Satar. H., & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 595-613.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.
Savigonon, S. & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. IRAL, 41, 223-249.
Shehaden, A. & Coombe, C. (2010). Applications of task-based learning in TESOL. Alexandria, Va: TESOL.
Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. Modern Language Journal, 90, 557-573.
Shima, C. (2008). Fluidity of peer interaction in a Japanese language classroom. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5, 126-139.
Sim, T., Har, K., & Luan, N. (2010). Low proficiency learners in synchronous computer-assisted and face-to-face interactions. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 61-75.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Learning, 36, 1-14.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57.
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33-58.
Smith, B. (2009). Task-based learning in the computer-mediated communicative ESL/EFL classroom. CALL-EJ Online, 11(1). Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/11-1/smith.html
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse function and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Sotillo, S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 467-496.
Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305-322.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Suthers, D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50, 1103-1127.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focuson form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehen, & M. Swain (Eds.), Reseraching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 98-118). London: Longman.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399-431.
Thomas, M., & Reinders, H. (2010). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. New York: Continuum.
Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558-572.
Tulung, G. J. (2008). Communicative task-generated oral discourse in a second language: A case study of peer interaction and non-native teacher talk in an EFL classroom. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: University of Ottawa.
Ur. P. (1981). Discussions that work: Task-centred fluency practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (2007). Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computer in Human Behavior, 23, 2538-2557.
Wang, M-W. (2008). Paired story mapping as a means to enhance EFL elementary school students’ reading comprehension. Unpublished M.A. thesis: National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Wang, R-S. (2006). The effect of jigsaw cooperative learning on motivation to learn English at Chung-Wa Institute of Technology, Taiwan. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: Florida International University.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121-142.
Wei, D. D. (2004, Nov. 28-Dec. 2). Rethinking the English pedagogy at Hope College in Taiwan. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 72-93.
Yen, W-T. (2005). Paired story mapping as intervention to enhance reading comprehension: A descriptive study focusing on ten EFL vocational high school students. Unpublished M.A. thesis: National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Yilmaz, Y. (2008). Collaborative dialogue during tasks in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation: Florida State University.
Zeng, G. & Takatsuka, S. (2009) Text-based peer- peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434-446.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top