跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.231.230.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/27 14:02
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:羅珮甄
研究生(外文):Pei-zhen Lo
論文名稱:運用社群網站以合作學習模式對大學生英文寫作能力之影響
論文名稱(外文):Effects of Using Social Networking on College Students’ English Writing Skills in the Process of Cooperative Learning
指導教授:鄭鼎耀鄭鼎耀引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ting-yao Cheng
口試委員:丁威廉楊逸君
口試委員(外文):Timothy WilliamsYi-Chun Christine Yang
口試日期:2012-06-26
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:亞洲大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系碩士班
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:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:104
中文關鍵詞:寫作活動臉書社群網站英語寫作能力
外文關鍵詞:writing activitiesFacebooksocial networkingEnglish writing skills
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:1248
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:226
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
摘要

本研究主要探討在合作學習模式中,利用社群網站是否能提升大學生英文寫作能力與自信。本研究方方法採用質化及量化研究,質化研究方面包含文字回饋訊息、學生小組訪談與課堂觀察。量化研究則包含、同儕分數與問卷調查。本研究利用學生與學生寫作活動來分析六十位大學生在合作學習歷程中是否能利用社群網站同儕之分數及回饋提升其寫作能力與自信。本研究結果顯示,在七個評分項目中,同儕在特定項目中給予越多的回饋信息,其特定項目之進步的程度相對越多。此外,同儕回應能夠提升大學生寫作能力,尤其是七個評分項目中之整體表現、文章內容、態度、自信四項中進步幅度最顯著。再者,同儕回應能幫助大學生建立英文寫作上的自信,主因是在於同儕間地位平等,容易了解彼此寫作上之問題且回應方式較為活潑,因此藉由正面的同儕回饋能夠幫助大學生建立更多信心。除此之外,大部分的大學生在給予回應時抱持真誠且客觀之態度,但仍有少數學生會依自己的感覺或是寫作內容來給於主觀之回饋。然而,在給予回饋中,不僅是接受回饋之大學生能提升寫作能力,給予回饋之大學生亦能透過自我反省的分式來提升英文寫作能力。合作學習能夠幫助大學生在小組中營造一個良好的學習寫作的氛圍,儘管僅僅三個小組在課後有利用合作學習來練習英文寫作。此外,由於參與本研究實驗之大學生人數過多、同儕回饋主要針對整個小組來給予整體回應,並非給予每一位組員回應、因此似乎無法完全地真正了解每一位學生英文寫作能力提升之程度。本研究建議老師可以用學生與學生寫作活動讓每位學生能充分參與且有更多給予學生自主學習之機會,另外,老師可以鼓勵學生多多給予同儕回饋,不僅可以幫助同儕學習,更可達到自省之成效。

關鍵字:寫作活動、臉書、社群網站、英語寫作能力

ABSTRACT
This study explores the effects of using social networking on college students’ English writing skills and confidence in the process of cooperative learning. This study use both qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative research includes peer feedback, group interviews and classroom observations. The quantitative research includes the scores from peers and questionnaires. The writing activities conducted in this study are used to determine if the sixty college students from Asia University improved their writing skills and increased their confidence with the scores and the peer feedback given under cooperative learning.
The results of this study show that the greater the amount of feedback the students received on specific aspects of English writing skills, the more the students improved on specific aspects.
It was found that peer feedback ameliorated college students’ English writing skills, especially with their writing activities, content, and attitude; and increased their confidence in writing English. In addition, most of the college students kept an authentic and objective attitude toward giving feedback. Nevertheless, few students gave subjective feedback depending on personal preferences. Furthermore, not only the feedback-receivers improved their writing skills, but also the feedback-givers gained by reflecting on their own learning while giving feedback. Cooperative learning created an exquisite learning atmosphere in the classroom.
This study suggests that teachers could conduct writing activities in class through cooperative learning so as to provide students more opportunities to practice English writing in class and encourage students to give more peer feedback.

Key words: writing activities, Facebook, social networking, English writing skills

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements I
Chinese Abstract II
English Abstract III
Table of Contents IV

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statements of the Problem 5
1.3 Purpose of the Research 7
1.4 Research Questions 8

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Cooperative Learning 9
2.1.1 Definition of Cooperative Learning 10
2.1.2 Background and Previous Research of Cooperative Learning 13
2.1.3 Major Elements of Cooperative Learning 16
2.1.4 Major Characteristics and Benefits in Cooperative Learning 18
2.1.5 Review of Cooperative Learning in Different Academic Subjects 19
2.1.6 Peer Feedback 21
2.2 Introduction to Facebook 27

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants 29
3.2 Instruments 31
3.2.1 Contents of the Peer Feedback Sheet 31
3.2.2 Questionnaire for the Participants 32
3.2.3 Questions for in-depth Group Interview 33
3.2.4 Classroom Observation 34
3.3 Procedure 37
3.4 Data Collection 42
3.5 Data Analysis 43

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Quantitative Score Results in Four-round Activities 46
4.2 The Results of Written Peer Feedback 50
4.2.1 The Most Frequently Mentioned Written Feedback On Group Writing Activities 51
4.2.2 The Most Frequently Mentioned Written Feedback On Writing
Activities 53
4.2.3 The Most Frequently Mentioned Written Feedback on Group on
Cohesion and Attitude 56
4.2.4 The Second Most Frequently Mentioned Written Feedback on
Punctuation and Confidence 58
4.2.5 The Second Most Frequently Mentioned Written Feedback on
Grammar and Self-learning 60
4.2.6 The Least Frequently Mentioned Written Feedback on Vocabulary,
Fluency and the Content of the Group Writing Activities 61
4.3 Result of Classroom Observation 62
4.4 Result of Group Interviews 63
4.4.1 Participants’ Attitudes toward the Feedback on Upgrading Writing
Skills 64
4.4.2 Participants’ Attitudes toward the Feedback on Increasing Their
Confidence in Writing English 64
4.4.3 Participants’ Attitudes toward Accepting Peer feedback 65
4.4.4 Participants’ Attitudes toward Giving Peer Feedback 65
4.4.5 Participants’ Attitudes toward Cooperative Learning 66
4.4.6 Participants’ Attitudes toward Using Peer Feedback as the Way of
Evaluation in class 67
4.5 Results of the Questionnaire 68
4.5.1 The Questionnaire Results on Cooperative Learning 70
4.5.2 The Questionnaire Results on Giving Peer Feedback 70
4.5.3 The Questionnaire Results about Receiving Peer Feedback 72
4.5.4 The Questionnaire Results about Using Facebook 74

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSSION
5.1 Summary of the Study 83
5.2 Limitation of the Study 87
5.3 Attitudes toward Using Facebook 88
5.4 Educational Implications 89
5.5 Suggestions for Future Research 91

REFERENCES 93

APPENDICES
Appendix A Peer Feedback Sheet 98
Appendix B Chinese Questionnaire (中文問卷) 100
Appendix C Questionnaire 102

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 The Timetable of Student-student Writing Activities 38
Table 2 The Seven Evaluation Items and Their Average Scores 46
Table 3 The Types of Written Feedback Mentioned and Frequency 51
Table 4 The Types of Feedback on Group Writing activity 52
Table 5 The Types of Feedback on Content 54
Table 6 The Types of Feedback on Cohesion and Attitude 56
Table 7 The Types of Feedback on Punctuation and Confidence 59
Table 8 The Result on Part One of the Questionnaire 68
Table 9 The Results from Part Two of the Questionnaire 70
Table 10 The Results for Part Three of the Questionnaire 72
Table 11 The Results of the last part of the Questionnaire 74

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Participants’ Certificate on English General Proficiency Test 30
Figure 2 Study Procedure 37
Figure 3 Graphical Representation of the Average Scores of the Seven
Evaluation Items in the Four Rounds of Writing Activities. 46
Figure 4 The Average Score Growth of the Seven Evaluation Items in
Four Round of the Writing Activities 48


REFERENCES
鄭鼎耀(2004)。外語教學法理論的探討。竹縣文教。第29期。頁11-14。
鄭鼎耀2006.06。網路資訊交換工具的發展趨勢與英語教學的應用:從Email、Chat
room、Blog到Wiki。視聽教育。47卷第5期。頁13-18。
Abuseilcek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL
environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 20(5), 493-514
Alavi, S. M. & Kaivanpanah, S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners’
achievement in English. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(2),
181-196.
Andrews, B. 1984. Alternative Futures for Faculties of Education. Canadian Journal of Education 9: 261–75.
Barrett, J. (1986). The evaluation of teachers. (ERIC Digest No. 12). Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction service No. ED278657)
Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16.483-501.,
Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652.
Carolyn, Kessler.(1992) Cooperative Language Learning: A teacher’s resource
book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carnell, E. (2002). Dialogue, discussion and secondary school students on how others help their learning. In Askew (Ed.) Feedback for Learning (pp. 46-61). London: Routledge.
Chen, Y.M. (2006). EFL students’ action and perception of peer and self-assessment. Paper presented at the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, R.O.C.
Cheng, T. Y. (2002). The function and organization of elementary school English instructional supervision group: A study of Taipei county English instructional supervision group. Master thesis, Graduate School of Children English Education, National Taipei Teachers College.
Cheng, T. Y. (2006). Trends in developing the tools of Internet information interchange and the application of English teaching: From e-mail, chat-room, blog to wiki. Audio-Visual Education, 5 (281), 32-39.
Cheng, Ting-yao (2006).Using Blogs as the Portfolio Assessment in an English Teachers Training Program: Enhancing Student Teachers’ Teaching Competence 16th International Symposium. English Teacher’s Association.
Cheng, Ting-yao (2007). Development of Online “Multimedia English Test for EFL Children. 2007 International KOTESOL Conference.
Cheng, Ting-yao (2007). The Beliefs of Kindergartners’ Parents toward English Learning Enhancing Student Teachers’ Teaching Competence 17th International Symposium. English Teacher’s Association
Cheng, T. Y. (2008). A study of constructing on-line English proficiency test for elementary schools. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Compulsory Education, National Chia-yi University. http: ndltd.ncl.edu.tw.xls.

Chia, H. U. (2007). Exploring Taiwanese college EFL students’ interaction patterns, reading comprehension and reader responses in cooperative learning. Published Doctoral Thesis, National Chiayi University, Taiwan.
Clark, J. M. (1995). Cognitive apprenticeship, motivation, and college writing: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University of America, Ohio.
Cohen, A. (1984). Introspecting about second language learning. Paper presented at the Ninth ILSASH Conference, Netanya, Israel.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35
Colonel Francis Parker, F. (1901, Mar) Principles of correlation. School Journal. 62, 217-219.
Daly, J. A. & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument of writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-49.
Dewey, J (1957). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan
Deutsch, M. (1978). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes.New Haven: Yale University Press.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32, 175-87.
Fathman, A.K., Quinn, M.A. & Kessler, C.(1992). Teaching science to English learners, grade 4-8. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 11,1-32.
Feng, H. P. (2001). Writing an academic paper in English: An exploratory study of six
Taiwanese graduate students. Published doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, New York.
Freeman, C. (1995). Foreword in K, Miyazaki. Building competencies in the xrm. New York: St. Martin Press.
Francis-Parker, F. Colonel. (1901) Principles of correlation. School Journal. 62, 217-219.
Freeeman, C.(1995). Foreword in K, Miyazaki. Building competencies in the firm. New York: St. Martin Press. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.
Herrington, A. & Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42, 184-199.
Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and Research (pp. 23-30). New York:
Praeger Publishers.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning. Boston: Charlesbridge Press.
Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma A. & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning- oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment and Education in Higher Education, 31(4), 453-464.
Kessler, Carolyn. (1992) Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book. Englewood Cliffs. N J: Prentice Hall Regents, pg. 257.
Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction. 10(1), 1-9.
Kuo, H. (2003). The nature and causes of interlanguage fossilization. A journal of Education, 4(1). Retrieved Febuary 28, 2009 from: http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/The Source/issue_2003_spring/kuo.htm.
Language Trainung and Testing Center. (2011). Gept Score Data Summary. Taipei, Taiwan:Author.
Lee, S. Y. & Krashen, S. D. (2002). Predictors of success in writing in English as a foreign language: Reading, revision behavior, apprehension, and writing. College Student Journal, 36, 532-543.
Legge, Anne L. (1980). “Small groups in college writing classes: Why and how,”.
Lewin, K. (1945). "The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology". Sociometry 8 (2):126–136. DOI:10.2307/2785233.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Li, L. & Steckelberg, A. (2004). Using peer feedback to enhance student meaningful learning. Paper presents to the Association for Educational Technology. Retrieved March 23 2009, from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlests/recordDetails/detailimini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED485111&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED485111.
Mallows, D. (2002). Non-linearity and the observed lesson. ELT Journal, 56, 3-9.
Mcleod, S. (1987). Some thoughts about feelings: the affective domain and the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 38(4), 426-435.
Mcgounrty, J.,Sebastian, C & Reilly, R. (1997). Incorporating student peer review and feedback into the assessment process. Paper presented at the Best Assessment Process in Engineering Education: A Working Symposium sponsored by National Science Foundation, ABET, and Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, April 1997, Terre Haute, Indiana.
McGourty, M.(1991). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 13,127-143.
Mrudula, P. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing,19(2), 109-131.
Myers, M, (1991). Cooperative Learning. Vol 11 No 4, July
Patri, M. (2002). The Influence of peer feedback on self-and peer-assessment of writing skills. The Language Testing, 19(2), 109-131.
Phinney, M. (1996). Exploring the virtual world: computers in the second language writing classroom. In M. Pennington (Ed), The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Piaget.J.(1964).Cognitive Development in Children:Development and
Learning,Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Vol.2,pp.176-186.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education. 26(3). 235-246.
Ramies, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York:Oxford University Press.
Rankin-Brown, M. (2006). Addressing Writing Apprehension in Adult English
Language Learners. CATESOL State Conference.
Reid, Louann. (1983). Talking: The neglected part of the writing process. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Conference, 229-362.
Resse-Durham, N. (2005). Peer evaluation as an active learning technique. Journal of Instructional Psychology,32(4),338-345.
Richards, J. (Ed.). (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
Ross, J. & Smythe, E. (1995). Differentiating cooperative learning to meet the needs of gifted learners: A case for transformational leadership. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 63-82.
Schcolnik, M. & Kol, S. (1999). Using presentation software to enhance language learning, The Internet TESL Journal, 5(3). Retrieved August 1st 2008 from: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Schcolnik-Presentation.html.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-241.
Sharan, S. & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sullivan, E.V. (1967). Piaget and the school curriculum: A critical appraisal. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tan, G., Gall, P., Jacobs, G. & Lee, Ch. (1999). Using cooperative learning to integrate thinking and information technology in a content-based writing lesson. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(8). Retrieved August 5, 2008 from: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tan-Cooperative.html
Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and school in social context. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3).249-276.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language leaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vigil, N. A. & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wauters, Joan K. (1998). “Non-confrontational critiquing pairs: An alternative to verbal peer response groups.” Writing Instructor, 7.(3-4), 156-165.
Wei, Z. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communcation,12,492-528.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top