(3.230.76.48) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/14 23:59
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:方信淳
研究生(外文):Hsin-chun Fang
論文名稱:過程導向的英文寫作課對於大學生的動機,焦慮,以及自我效能上的影響
論文名稱(外文):The influences of motivation, apprehension and self-efficacy on college students through process-oriented writing
指導教授:廖淑芬廖淑芬引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東商業技術學院
系所名稱:應用英語系(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:281
中文關鍵詞:大學生自我效能焦慮動機過程導向寫作
外文關鍵詞:English-as-a-foreign-languagecollege studentsself-efficacyapprehensionmotivationprocess-oriented writing
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:421
  • 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:124
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
過程導向的方法(process-oriented approach)在寫作上扮演著非常重大的角色。很多研究上已經證實了寫作過程導向的方法可以讓學生們的寫作技巧上升許多。縱使有些研究報告指出,有些人的寫作成就沒有因此提升,但不可否認的是他們確實也達到了溝通、討論的目的。因此總括來說,寫作課裡面採取過程導向確實對學生是有明顯好處的。然而,雖有許多的研究證明過程導向在寫作方面有幫助,卻少有人研究寫作過程導向教學對於學生的動機(motivation),焦慮(apprehension),以及自我效能(self-efficacy)上的改變。因此,本研究在寫作課,採用了過程導向教學去發現學生的寫作動機,寫作焦慮,以及寫作的自我效能上的改變。這是一個質性研究,研究者找來了六位外語系的大學三年級的學生。之前都有參與寫作課的經驗,卻沒有實質的參與過真正寫作導向過程架構下的寫作課。研究者採用Flower以及Hayes (1981)年的過程導向架構去探索學生的變化。研究工具是觀察,訪談,以及錄音。結果證明,經歷了八堂課的過程導向的寫作教學,普遍的學生在整體的過程導向下,寫作動機提升了,寫作焦慮下降了,寫作自我效能也提升了。然而,研究者試著將寫作導向的各項來探討,發現某些步驟進行上,學生的動機和自我效能不升反減。此外,本研究更發現學生的動機和自我效能的成長,以及焦慮的下降是因為過程導向的寫作教學的寫作步驟(writing steps)和學生為中心的學習方式(student-centered learning)改變了他們。本研究的結果證實,過程導向的寫作課對學生的動機,焦慮以及自我效能都有正面的變化,也可以證實了過程導向的教學方式對學生是有明顯的幫助的。因此,老師更可以根據此研究結果,改良一些學生比較不喜歡的步驟,讓學生在過程導向的教學裡面,達到更好的效果。
Process-oriented approach was extremely important in writing. Much research showed that it did improve students’ writing skills. Although some studies pointed out that some learners did not make progress in writing achievement, they did communicate and discuss with peers through such a writing approach. Therefore, a process-oriented approach did help learners improve their writing. However, although many studies demonstrated that process-oriented approach was a good way in writing, not many researchers explored how it changed the motivation, apprehension, and self-efficacy of college students. Therefore, this study adopted the process-oriented approach in writing class to discover changes of three factors. This was a qualitative research examining the role of process-writing on motivation apprehension, and self-efficacy of six college juniors who majored in English. They have taken writing classes before, but were not taught in process-oriented approach. The researcher adopted the process-oriented approach by Flower and Hayes (1981) version to explore their changes on the three constructs mentioned above. Data was collected through observation, interview, and tape recording. Through eight classes in process-oriented writing sessions, the researcher found that most these participants’ motivation and self-efficacy increased, and their apprehension decreased. However, the study also discussed with every step of process-oriented model. It showed that some students’ motivation and self-efficacy decreased, and their apprehension increased in some specific steps. In addition, the researcher also found out that writing steps and a student-centered environment helped improve students’ motivation and self-efficacy, as well as reduce apprehension. The study demonstrated that process-oriented model had positive changes for motivation, apprehension and self-efficacy on students. Hence, teachers could use process-oriented approach to teach students, and improve some unsuited steps to become better.
Table of Contents
Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………………..I
Abstract………………………...…………………………………………………...II
Chinese Acknowledgements………………………………………………………….III
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..VI
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….IX
Tables..……………………………………………………………………………XIV
Figures...…………………………………………………………..……………XVI
CHAPTER 1…………………………………………………………………………...1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Background Motivation……………………………………………………1
1.2 Problem Statement...………………………………………………………2
1.3 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………….3
1.4 Research Questions………………………………………………………..4
1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………………….4
CHAPTER 2…………………………………………………………………………..6
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………6
2.1 Process-Oriented Writing…………………………………………….……6
2.1.1 The purpose of the process-oriented approach…….……….……….6
2.1.2 The theoretical background of the process-oriented writing….……7
2.1.3 The effect of the process-oriented writing……………………...…..17
2.2 Motivation………………………………………………………………..22
2.2.1 The theoretical background of motivation…………….…….……..23
2.2.2 The positive effect on students’ motivation………………..……….24
2.3 Apprehension…………………………………………………..…………27
2.3.1 The theoretical background of apprehension…………….………...27
2.3.2 The positive and negative effects on students’ apprehension......28
2.4 Self-Efficacy………………………………………………..…………….30
2.4.1 The theoretical background of self-efficacy………………..………30
2.4.2 The positive effect on students’ self-efficacy…………………31
CHAPTER 3………………………………………………………………………….33
Methodology……………………………………………………………………..33
3.1 Participants………………………………………………………………34
3.1.1 Characteristics of the participants…………………………………34
3.2 Research Instruments……………………………………………………37
3.2.1 Observation……………………………………………….……….37
3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews……………………………….……….38
3.2.3 Fieldnotes…………………………………………….……………40
3.2.4 Portfolio……………………………………..…….………………..41
3.2.5 Tape recording…………………………………….……..…………42
CHAPTER 4…………………………………………………….…….…….………..43
Result and Analysis………………………………………….……….….……….43
4.1 Implementation of the Process-Oriented Writing……………..…….….43
4.2 Discussion for Motivation Changes from Participants…………………..47
4.2.1 Increasing motivation for the participants……….…………………47
4.2.1.1 Writing steps…………………………………...……………..48
4.2.1.2 Student-centered environment………………………………..66
4.2.2 Decreasing motivation on the participants……………..…………..72
4.3 Discussion for Changes of Apprehension on the participants…...…….74
4.3.1 Decreasing apprehension on the participants…….………………..74
4.3.1.1 Writing steps……………………………………………….…75
4.3.1.2 Student-centered environment………………………………..88
4.3.2 Increasing apprehension from the participants…………..…………95
4.4 Discussion for Changes of Self-Efficacy from the Participants..…….…..97
4.4.1 Increasing self-efficacy from the participants…………………….97
4.4.1.1 Writing steps………………………………………………….98
4.4.1.2 Student-centered environment…………………………...….119
4.4.2 Decreasing self-efficacy on the participants…………………127
CHAPTER 5……………………………………………………………………….129
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….129
5.1 Major Findings………………………………………….….…………..129
5.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………………..……………..132
5.3 Limitations of the Study…………………………….….………………134
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research……………………….………………135
Reference…………………………………………………………….……………..136
Appendix 1 Peer Editing Checklist (Chinese)……………………….……………..144
Appendix 2 Peer Editing Checklist (English)………………………………………146
Appendix 3 Semi-structured interviews for writing motivation, writing apprehension, and writing self-efficacy (Chinese)…………………………………………………148
Appendix 4 Semi-structured interviews for writing motivation, writing apprehension, and writing self-efficacy (English)…………………………………………………150
Appendix 5 Complaint letter…………………………………………………….…152
Appendix 6 Promotional letter……………………………………………………..153
Appendix 7 Inquiry letter………………………………………..…………………154
Appendix 8 Complaint letter……………………………………………………….155
Appendix 9 Apology letter…………………………………………………………156
Appendix 10 Participant 1’s portfolios………………………..……………………157
Appendix 11 Participant 2’s portfolios……………………..………………………175
Appendix 12 Participant 3’s portfolios………………………………..……………193
Appendix 13 Participant 4’s portfolios……………………………………………..211
Appendix 14 Participant 5’s portfolios……………………………………..………229
Appendix 15 Participant 6’s portfolios………………………………..…………....247
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT
Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Bos, C. S. (1988). Process-oriented writing: Instructional implications for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54 (6), 521-527.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Allyn & Bacon.
Cho, Y. (2001). Examining a process-oriented writing assessment in a large-scale ESL testing context. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Illinois, America.
Coffin, C. (2006). Learning the language of school history: The role of linguistics in mapping the writing demands of the secondary school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 413-429.
Covill, A. E. (2010). Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to improve college students’ writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 199-226.
Cordova, R. A., & Matthiesen, A. L. (2010). Reading, writing and mapping our worlds into being: Shared teachers inquires into whose literacy count. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 452-463.
Czuchry, M., & Danserrau, D. F. (1996). Note-link mapping as an alternative to traditional writing assessments in undergraduate psychology courses. Teaching of psychology, 23(2), 91-96.
Duan, Y. B. (2011). How to motivate students in second language writing. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(4), 235-240.
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with powers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theiories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 48, 527-542.
Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witter, S. P. (1981). The rule – Writing apprehension in writing performance and competence. American Educational Research Association, 13-17.
Ferris, D. R. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2004). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: America.
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39 (4), 449-461.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2002). How to design and evaluate research in education.McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Galbraith, D. & Trent, S. O. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language, 2 (3), 7-22.
Garcia, J. N., & Fidalgo, R. (2008). Orchestration of writing processes and writing products: A comparison of six-grader students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A contemporary journal, 6(2), 77-98.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & Practice of Writing. London: Longman.
Gomez, R., Parker, R., Lara, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient students. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20(2), 209-233.
Gall, M; Borg, W & Gall, J (1996) Educational Research, An Introduction. (6th Edition). USA: Longman
Gunersel, A. B., & Simpson, N. (2009). Improvement in writing and reviewing skills with calibrated peer review. International Journal for the scholarship of teaching and learning. 3(2), 1-14.
Horning, A. & Becker, A. (2006). Revision: History, Theory, and Practice. Unite States: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Ibnian, S. S. K. (2010). The effect of using story-mapping technique on developing tenth grade students’ short story writing skills in EFL. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 3(4), 181-194.
Jarratt, S. C., Mack, K., Sartor, A., & Watson, S. E. (2009). Pedagogical memory: Writing, mapping, translating. Writing Program Administration, 33(1-2), 46-73.
Kim, H. (2009). The perception change toward feedback in L2 writing: An analysis of graduate students’ writing processes. English teaching, 64(3), 79-105.
Kroll, B. (1990). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The effect of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of EFL. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 12-23.
Lam, S. F., & Law, Y. K. (2007). The roles of instructional practices and motivation in writing performance. The ./ournal of Experimental Education, 75(2), 145-164.
Lan, X. X., & Liu, Y. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
Liu, M., & Chai, Y. (2006). Attitudes toward peer review and reaction to peer feedback in Chinese EFL writing classrooms. TESL Reporter, 42(1), 33-51.
Li, D. (2007). Story mapping and its effects on the writing fluency and world diversity of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A contemporary Journal, 5(1), 77-93.
Mcgarell, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), 228-236.
Merriam, S. B. and Associates (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Montague, N. (1995). The process-oriented approach to teaching writing to second language learners. Bilingual education journal, 10, 13-14.
Mucherah, W., & Yoder, A. (2008). Motivation for reading and middle school students’ performance on standardized testing in reading. Reading Psychology, 29, 214-235.
Myhill, D. (2009). Children’s patterns of composition and their reflections on their reflections on their composing process. British Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 47-64.
Ochieng, M. A. (2005). Second voices, familiar territory: An exploratory study of ESL academic practices. A case study of Kenyan students in a worth American university. Unpublished Dissertation, America.
O’Connel, A. N. (1980). Effect of manipulated status on performance, goal setting, achievement motivation, anxiety, and fear of success. The Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 75-89.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal Volume, 61(2),100-106.
Salili, F., & Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on student’s achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in Schools, 40(1), 51-70.
Staal, L. A. (2000). The story face: An adaption of story mapping that incorporates visualization and discovery learning to enhance reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 26-31.
Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities research & practice, 17(2), 124-139.
Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: A report from Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 209-226.
Tavani, C. M., & Losh, S, C. (2003). Motivation, self-confidence, and expectations as predictors of the academic performances among our high school students. Child Study Journal, 33(3), 141-151.
Telceker, H., & Akcan, S. (2007). The effect of oral and written teacher feedback on students’ revision in a process-oriented EFL writing class. TESL Reporter, 43(1), 31-49.
Tin, M., & Qian, Y. (2010). A case study of peer feedback in a Chinese EFL writing classroom. Chinese journal of applied linguistics, 33(4), 87-98.
Ton, N. (2001). Correcting student compositions: Case studies. Teacher’s Edition, 6, 18-24.
Tong, W. (2007). Teach writing as an ongoing process: Tips for EFL learners on reviewing EFL composition. US-China Foreign Language, 5(11), 53-58.
Tran, L. (1999). Some methods for correcting students’ written work. Science Journal, 11(5), 96-103.
Tran, L. (2001). Using pair work and group work in teaching writing. Teacher’s Edition, 5, 22-28.
Tran, L. T. (2007). Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 151-163.
Troia, G. A. (2001). Teaching writing strategies to children with disabilities: Setting generalization as the goal. Exceptionality, 10(4), 249-269.
Voon, H. F. (2010). The use of brainstorming and role playing as a pre-writing strategy. The international journal of writing, 17(3), 537-558.
Weigle, S. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(3): 194–209.
Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2007). First-graders’ motivation and achievement for reading, writing and spelling. Reading Psychology, (28), 257-282.
Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational technology, 42(4). 687-700.
李希潔 (2009):〈同儕評量在高中英文寫作教學之應用〉,國立東華大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
吳秀霞 (2010):〈運用寫作修改策略以提升小學六年級學生寫作成效之研究〉,國立東華大學國民教育研究所碩士論文。
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