(3.235.41.241) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/11 21:48
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:孟文婷
研究生(外文):Wen-Ting Meng
論文名稱:線上同儕訓練對大學生寫作修改之影響
論文名稱(外文):The Impact of Online Peer Training on EFL College Students'' Text Revision
指導教授:楊育芬楊育芬引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yu-Fen Yang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:應用外語系碩士班
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:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:英文
論文頁數:94
中文關鍵詞:同儕回饋合作式學習文本修改線上同儕訓練
外文關鍵詞:Online peer trainingText revisionPeer feedbackCollaborative learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:159
  • 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:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
許多研究指出一個成功的寫作修改,寫作者需經歷編輯自己的文章,與同儕討論自己文章,並根據同儕的意見來修改自己的文章之歷程來完成寫作修改的動作。在寫作修改的過程中,學生的語言能力與寫作修改的好壞有其關聯性, 然而,鮮少有研究提出提升學生偵錯與改錯的能力以增進同儕回饋在學生寫作修改中的效用。
本研究旨在評估線上同儕訓練對於提升學生寫作修改之效用。研究對象為台灣中部某一所科技大學25位大學生。學生於此研究中需經歷兩次不同的寫作歷程,以檢驗線上同儕訓練之效用。在第一個寫作歷程裡,學生經歷編輯文章、同儕修改與自己修改文章之歷程;在第二個寫作歷程中,學生經歷編輯文章、線上同儕訓練、同儕修改與自己修改文章之歷程。在線上同儕訓練中,學生須完成下列之步驟: (1)定義任務:判斷修改的目的; (2)評量任務:根據任務對文章進行閱讀及偵錯;(3)策略使用:使用適當的策略以達成任務目標,如:查閱字典或書籍; (4)修改文章:根據文章偵錯之結果來進行文章修改,使讀者了解文章之內容。資料收集包含學生的個人歷程追蹤、文本及修改過的文本和開放式問卷。所有的資料使用統計軟體SPSS12.0以質性和量化的方法作分析。
研究結果發現:線上同儕訓練對大學生寫作修改具有其正面的影響,且驗證寫作修改的結果與學生的語言能力相互關聯。透過線上同儕訓練,程度較差學生能提升他們寫作修改的內容並且提供更有說服力的回饋給同儕。
Studies concerning successful revision in writing suggested that a writer should have a chance to edit the text by himself, clarify the text meaning with peers, and revise the text. In the revision process, writers’ language proficiency is associated with the quality of revision. However, how to promote students’ detection and correction ability in order to improve the effects of peer feedback on EFL college students’ text revision are less mentioned in previous studies.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of online peer training on EFL college students’ text revision. A total of 25 EFL college students from different departments in a technological university were recruited. Two writing cycles, which examined the effects of online peer training, are conducted in this study. In the first writing cycle, students were asked to go through the process of drafting, peer editing and revising without online peer training. In the second writing cycle, students were asked to draft their second topic, and receive the online peer training in online error correction before the peers’ editing. In the online peer training system, students should complete the following steps: (1) task definition: to realize the purpose of task in order to revise the text, (2) task evaluation: to read and detect the errors in terms of the task definition, (3) strategy selection: to search for the strategy such as looking up the dictionary or textbook for help, and (4) modification of text: to correct the errors in order to make text more understandable than the previous one. After students finished the online peer training, they underwent the process of peer editing and revising. This date collection involved students’ personal trace results, students’ texts and revision of the text, and open-ended questionnaire in order to improve the effects of online peer training. All data were used both quantitative and qualitative analysis by Statistical Package for Social Science 12.0 version (SPSS).
Results of this study show that the online peer training has positive effects on EFL college students’ text revision. The finding indicates that revision quality is associated with students’ language proficiency and online peer training. Through the online peer training, the less-proficient students improve their revision quality and provide more valid comment for peers than they were untrained.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chinese Abstract i
English Abstract iii
Acknowledgement v
Table of contents vi
List of tables ix
List of figures xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 4
1.3 Significance of the study 4
1.4 Definitions of Terms 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Cognitive Models of Writing 7
2.1.1 Flower and Hayes’ Model 8
2.1.2 Scardamalia and Bereiter ’s CDO Model 11
2.1.3 Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Statman and Carey’s revision model 12
2.1.4 Factors Affecting Revision Skills 13
2.2 Peer feedback 14
2.2.1 Process Approach to Writing 15
2.2.2 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development 16
2.2.3 Collaborative learning 16
2.2.4 Factors affecting peer feedback 17
2.2.5 The effect of peer training 18
2.3 Criteria for Text Improvement 21
2.3.1 Faigley and Witte’s Taxonomy of Revision 21
2.3.2 Hall’s taxonomy of revision 23
CHAPTER THREE METHOD 26
3.1 Participants 26
3.2 The Research Design 27
3.3 Instruments 29
3.3.1 The Revision Module for Online Peer Training System 30
3.3.2 Revision Task 32
3.3.3 The Student Interface 32
3.3.4 The Teacher Interface 34
3.4 Procedure of Data Collection 35
3.5 Procedure of Data Analysis 37
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 39
4.1. Students A’s and B’s progress in text revision after training 39
4.1.1 Student A’s and B’s interactions with peers 39
4.1.2 Student A’s and B’s scores in each task in the online peer training 46
4.1.3 Student A’s and B’s text improvement 49
4.2 The effects of online peer training on students’ text revision 62
4.2.1 The types of peer feedback before and after the online peer training 62
4.2.2 Students’ revision quality before and after online peer training 65
4.3 Students’ perceptions towards the online peer training 67
4.3.1 Students’ perceptions towards the online peer training system 67
4.3.2 Difficulties the students encountered in the online peer training system 69
4.3.3 Strategy proposed from students for overcoming the difficulties 70
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION 72
5.1 Summary of the Findings and Discussions 72
5.2 Pedagogical Implications of the Study 76
5.3 Limitations of the Present Study 77
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research 78
References 80
APPENDIX A 87
APPENDIX B 88
References
Archibald, A. (2001). Targeting L2 writing proficiencies: instruction and areas of
Change in student’ writing over time. International journal of English studies,
1(2), 153-174.
Bartlett, E.J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand
(Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written
discourse (pp. 345-363). New York: Academic Press.
Berg, B. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision
types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., &; Ackerman, J. (1991). Social context and socially
constructed texts: The initiation of a graduate student into a writing research
community. In C. Bazerman &; J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the
professions (pp. 191–215). Madison, WI.: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and
the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Carson, J. G., &; Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer
response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Celce-Muricia, M. (1992). Formal grammar instruction: An educator comments.
TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 406–409.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement
in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12, 267–296.
Cheng, Y. C. &; Ku, H. Y. (2009). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer
tutoring. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1, 40–49.
Cho, K. &; Schunn, C. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: a
web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers &; Education, 48, 409–426.
Faigley, L., &; Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and
Communication, 32(4), 400-414.
Flower, L., &; Hayes, J. R. (1981a). A cognitive process of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Flower, L., &; Hayes, J. R. (1981b). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of
planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229-244.
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., &; Stratman, J. (1986). Detection,
diagnosis, and strategies of revision. In L. Ede (Ed.), The Braddock essays (pp.
191-228). Boston:Bedford St. Martin''s.
Hall, C. (1990), Managing the Complexity of Revising Across Languages. TESOL
Quarterly 24 (1), 43-60.
Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F. and Carey, L. (1987).
Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in Applied
Psycholinguistics, Vol. 2: Reading, Writing and Language Learning (pp.
176-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hedgcock, J.,&;Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign
language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3),
255–276.
Horner, B. (1997). Students, Authorship, and the Work of Composition. College
English, 59(5), 505–529.
Hu, G., &; Lam, S. (8, Jan., 2009). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical
efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional
Science, 38: 4, 371-394. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1.
Kobayashi, H., &; Rinnert, C. (2001). Factors relating to EFL writers’ discourse level
revision skills. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 71-101.
Langer, J.A. (1986). Learning through writing: Study skills in the content areas.
Journal of Reading, 29, 400–406.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for
writing assessment. AssessingWriting, 11, 5–21.
Lundstrom, K., &; Baker W. (2008). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of
peer review to the reviewer''s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
18(1), 30-43.
Mangelsdorf, K. and Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL students response stances in a
peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235-254.
McCutchen, D., Francis, M., &; Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of
knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 667-676.
Sasaki, M. &; Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory Variables for EFL Students’ Expository Writing. Language Learning, 46 (1), 137-74.
Mendon&;ccedil;a, C. O., &; Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision
activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., &; Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher
feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing,
15, 179-200.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System,
33(2), 293–308.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types
and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for specific purposes, 27, 285-305.
Moon, Y. I. (2000). The nature of peer revisions in an EFL writing class of a Korean
university. English Teaching, 55(1), 119-140.
Nelson, G. L. &; Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social
dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 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(1), 135-141.
Nystrand, M., Greene, S., &; Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come
from? Written Communication, 10(3), 267–333.
Piolat, A. (1997) Writers’ assessment and evaluation of their texts. In C. Clapham &;
D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education. Vol. 7: Language
testing and assessment (pp.189-198). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Porte, G. (1997). The etiology of poor second language writing: The influence of
perceived teacher preferences on second language revision strategies. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 6(1), 61-78.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Roca De Larios, J., Murphy, L., &; Marin, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2
writing process research. In S. Ransdell &; M.L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp.11-47). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59,
23-30.
Sasaki, M., &; Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository
writing. Language Learning, 46, 137–174
Sato, T., (1991). Revising strategies Japanese students’ writing in English as a foreign
language. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Burtis, P. and Tetroe, J., (1983). The development of
planning in writing. In B. M. Kroll and G. Wells (Eds.), Explorations in the
Development of Writing (pp. 153-174). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Scardamailia, M., &; Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In C.
Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 778-803). New
York: Macmillan.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-234.
Tierney, R.J., O’Flahavan, J.F., &; McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of reading and
writing upon thinking critically, Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134–173.
Trimmer, F.J. (1995). Writing with a Purpose. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Topping, K. (1998) Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities.
Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Tsui, A., &; Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
281-290.
Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Process. Harvard University Press, Cambrige, MA.
Wallace, D. L., &; Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in
the Teaching of English, 25(1), 54-66.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and
communication. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language
learning: proceedings of the Hawai''i Symposium. Honolulu: Second Language
Teaching &; Curriculum Center, University of Hawai''i at Manoa.
Winterword, W. R. &; Murray, P. Y. (1985). English Writing and Skills. CA: Coronado
Publishers
Yang ,Y. F., Yeh, C.H. &; Wong, W.K. (2010). The influence of social interaction on
meaning construction in a virtual community. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(2).
Yang, Y. F. (2011) A reciprocal peer review system to support college
students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (4), 687-700.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly,
16, 195-209.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL
writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
Zimmerman, B.J., &; Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 1. 呂太郎,家事事件法若干解釋上問題-民事訴訟法研究會第115次研討紀錄,法學叢刊,227期,2012年7月。
2. 2. 呂太郎,婚姻事件附帶請求未成年子女扶養費之性質,月旦法學雜誌,177期,2010年2月。
3. 3. 呂太郎,離婚事件附帶請求扶養費之若干實務問題-民事訴訟法研究會第106次研討紀錄,法學叢刊,218期,2010年4月。
4. 4. 吳明軒,家事訴訟程序值得檢討之事項,月旦法學雜誌,219期,2013年8月。
5. 5. 吳明軒,試論家事事件法之得失-逐條評釋(上),月旦法學雜誌,205期,2012年6月。
6. 6. 林秀雄,未成年子女扶養費之請求,萬國法律,126期,2002年12月。
7. 7. 林秀雄,我國親權法之現狀與課題,月旦法學雜誌,100期,2003年9月。
8. 8. 林秀雄,扶養之方法與扶養費給付之方法-評最高法院101年度台簡抗字第50號民事裁定,月旦裁判時報,23期,2013年10月。
9. 9. 林秀雄,婚生否認與認領無效-評最高法院100年度台上字第994號民事判決,月旦裁判時報,18期,2012年12月。
10. 11. 沈冠伶,未成年子女扶養請求事件程序上問題-基於未成年子女之最佳利益保護及統合解決紛爭之觀點,政大法學評論,73期,2003年3月。
11. 13. 沈冠伶,家事事件之類型及統合處理(一),月旦法學教室,118期,2012年8月。
12. 16. 洪遠亮,兒童及少年福利法的幾個法律問題,律師雜誌,287期,2003年8月。
13. 17. 許士宦,家事非訟之程序保障(二),月旦法學教室,121期,2012年11月。
14. 21. 許士宦,間接強制金之裁定及執行(一)、(二)-家事債務履行確保方法之一,月旦法學教室,125、126期,2013年3、4月。
15. 24. 許澍林,未成年子女扶養事件法院處理實務,月旦法學雜誌,101期,2003年10月。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔