跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.227.117) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/28 03:54
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:呂婕
論文名稱:英文寫作提示對於大學生寫作及閱讀內文選用之影響
論文名稱(外文):Influences of Writing Prompts on EFL University Students’ English Writing and Source Use
指導教授:廖明姿廖明姿引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:英文
論文頁數:145
中文關鍵詞:英語寫作寫作提示內文選用寫作技巧學習者感知
外文關鍵詞:English writingWriting promptSource useWriting techniquesLearners' perceptions
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:198
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
  本研究旨在探討結合閱讀文章於寫作提示中,對學生英文寫作的影響。此研究邀請英文系大一及大二兩班共四十五位學生作為實驗對象。研究當中運用「獨立式作文」及「讀寫作文」兩種作文形式來評量加入閱讀文章於寫作提示中對學生英文寫作成績及作文產出的影響。此外,本研究對照寫作提示及學生的作文,分析學生的選材上的偏好、統合資料時常用的寫作技巧、與運用寫作技巧時易有的習慣。為深入瞭解學生在面對兩種寫作形式時的心境,以及撰寫讀寫作文時理解、篩選、與組織訊息的心理知覺,此研究由四十五位參與實驗的學生當中選出十八位進行訪談。所有收集的資料經由量化或質化分析後,所得結果摘要如下:

1. 學生之讀寫作文在內容、用字、言語技巧、寫作手法的成績皆較獨立式作文有顯著的提升。唯學生在兩篇作文中所展現的組織技巧未有顯著差異。

2.此研究亦分析學生英文作文產出量,結果顯示學生的讀寫作文產出量相較於獨立式作文產出量多。

3. 在讀寫作文表現較好的學生較表現較差的學生使用更多引用資料。

4.學生傾向於引用寫作提示中提供的例子因學生認為例子較主題句更為具體,易理解且易引用。

5. 學生在組織讀寫作文時,各段落常以自己的個人看法開頭及作結,內文則多引用寫作提示中的內容。再者,學生比起按照英文作文要求的架構組織作文,更偏向於用自身邏輯組織文章。

6. 此研究分析「改寫、總結、引文、逐字抄襲、部分抄寫」五個引用技巧,發現學生大量使用改寫,總結及部分抄寫次之,引文最少。以下簡述學生使用引用技巧時常有的現象:
(1) 學生引文時以引用標題及名言諺語為主。
(2) 讀寫作文得分較佳的學生資料統合得條理清晰,得分相對較低的學生易將多個關連性低的資料集中於一個段落,以致文意不清。
(3) 學生在總結多項訊息時容易產生部分抄襲。
(4) 學生在改寫時常將原寫作提示中清楚點出的人、事、物替換為一個概念廣泛的集合名詞,導致文意變得較曖昧不明。
(5) 由學生的錯誤改寫內容,可推測學生是否不懂寫作提示中某些單字或文意,在寫作當下錯誤臆測導致改寫內容不符原文所述。

7. 受訪學生大多認為寫作提示中的閱讀資料可幫助他們建立與寫作主題相關的知識及引導學生寫作不偏題,故讀寫作文較獨立式作文容易寫。

8. 受訪學生鮮少使用引文因學生認為直接引用文章內容或名言佳句會減少作文之原創性。

9. 受訪學生鮮少使用逐字抄襲因他們了解此行為涉及抄襲,但有些學生認為將原文打散並部分抄寫至作文當中即可避免抄襲,由此可觀察學生對抄襲之概念尚不完備。

根據本研究之研究結果,此研究提出幾點教師於教學上指導及評量學生英文寫作的建議如下:

1. 在英文作文教學時,除指導學生英文寫作架構外,教師需在學生寫作時提醒及協助他們利用英文架構來組織文章,避免學生學習了寫作知識,卻未將知識實際應用於作文上。

2. 當教師在作文中加入閱讀資料時,需引導學生如何正確使用不同的引用技巧,此外,建議教師向學生解釋引用及抄襲之分別,避免學生對於抄襲的瞭解有偏頗,導致學生作文中可能出現部分抄寫。

3. 教師普遍在評量學生作文時僅以學生寫出的成品進行評分,本研究建議教師將寫作提示納入評量之中,藉由觀察學生與寫作提示的互動及對比寫作提示與學生的作文可更深入瞭解學生寫作程度、思考方向、用字、文章鋪陳,從而安排更貼近學生需求,改善寫作癥結的英文寫作課程。
The purpose of this study is to investigate the influences of writing prompt on Chinese EFL University Students’ English essay writing and source use. The participants were 45 students from The English Department. The study analyzed the influences of the writing prompt by asking the participants to complete two types of writing tasks. The participants’ essays were analyzed quantitatively by paired sample t-test. This study also counted the minimal terminable units of the participants’ essays to investigate the influences of the writing prompt on their language production. Furthermore, the participants’ essays were scrutinized to analyze the tendency of source use and writing techniques. Finally, for understanding Chinese EFL learners’ perceptions, this study invited 18 participants to participate in the follow-up interview. The results of this study are distilled as follows.

1. The participants’ scores of content, vocabulary, wording, and mechanics were significantly higher in the reading-to-write task than the independent writing task, except for organization. In addition, the participants’ language production in the reading-to-write task was higher as well.

2. The better performed participants cohesively integrated more information from the writing prompt than participants who scored relatively lower in the reading-to-write task.

3. The participants frequently copied phrases from the writing prompt. Nonetheless, the participants seldom copied the whole sentences for they had the knowledge that plagiarism is illegal.

4. The participants tended to borrow examples from the writing prompt because examples were more specific and comprehensible. However, because of paraphrasing specific ideas with general terms, the concreteness of the participants’ essays were hindered.

5. From the participants’ wrongly paraphrased contents, instructors might be able to surmise whether the participants had thoroughly comprehended the writing prompt.

6. The participants used their personal logic to organize their essays rather than followed the rules of organizing English essays to structure their essays.

7. The participants thought writing the reading-to-write task was less challenging than the independent writing task because they could construct background knowledge by reading the writing prompt.

According to the findings, this study proposed four pedagogical implications. First, the participants view the writing prompt as beneficial sources to obtain better ideas to write. Second, the organization skill is not a receptive skill. It required practical practices. In addition to lecturing learners the rule of organizing formal English essays, learners need to be reminded to apply the organization they learned during writing. Third, learners should be guided by instructors to utilize writing techniques properly during transforming borrowed information into their essays. Finally, this study suggested that instructors should evaluate learners by observing how learners use and interact with writing prompts. Hence, instructors might understand the participants’ writing abilities, levels of mastering writing techniques, comprehension of writing prompts, and learners’ perceptions so as to arrange the lessons and fix the root of the learners’ writing problems.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………………………………………………01
Background and Motivation………………..……………………………01
Statements of the Problem………………….………………….………………05
Purposes of the Study…………………………………………………………..06
Research Questions…………….………………………………….……………07
Significance of the Study……………………………………….….…..….……08
Limitations of the Study……………………………………………….……….09
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………….……….09

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW……………..……….………….……13
An Overview of Reading-to-write Tasks……………………….………..….…13
Relationships of Reading and Writing.…………………….….….…………13
Directionality between Reading and Writing……….….……….…….……16
Writing Prompts in Reading-to-write Tasks.….…….….….….……….…..…19
Introduction to Writing Prompts………….…….….….…………….………19
Effects of Prompts on Writers’ Writing …………………….…………….…20
Constructing Reading-to-write Tasks….…………..………………..……..…22
Empirical Studies on the Effects of Prompts on Writers’ Writing Quality…25
Types of Writers’ Responses in Reading-to-write Tasks……….….…………28
Source Use in Reading-to-write Tasks………….……………….…….…..…29
Writing Techniques Students Used in Reading-to-write Tasks….….……….31
Students’ Perceptions of Reading-to-write Tasks….……..………..……..…35

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY……….…………….…………….………38
Participants………………………………….……….…….……………………38
Instruments…………………….…………….……………….…………………39
Writing Tasks………………….………….……………….………………..39
The independent writing task………..………….….…………….……40
The reading-to-write task..……….….………………………………..40
An Interview Form……………….…..….………………………………….43
Procedures…………………….…………………………………………………44
Data Analysis……………………….…………………………………………..47
Analytic Scoring…………….……….….….….…….….….……………….…47
Quantitative Analysis…………………….…………………………………47
Qualitative Analysis……………………….………………………….……48
Analyzing source use…………….……….……….……….…….….…48
Analyzing writing techniques…………….…….…….………….….…50
Analyzing the follow-up interview data……….……..………………..51

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS…….…………..……………52
Influences of Writing Prompt on EFL University Students’ English Writing………………………………………………………..….………….…..52
Comparisons of Analytical Grading Results between the Independent Writing Task and the Reading-to-write Task ………………..….…….……….53
Influences of Writing Prompt on EFL University Students’ English Productions…………………………….……….………….………………57
Sources and Writing Techniques Used in the Reading-to-writing Task…….59
The Amount of Sources Used in the Participants’ Written Reading-to-write Task….……………………………………………….………………….…59
Variety of Sources Selected by Learners….….…….….…….…..….…..…..62
Writing Techniques Used by the Participants to Apply Information…..…..69
Quotation …………………………………………………….………………71
Summary …………………………………………….…….…………………74
Paraphrase…………………….…..…………….………….….……….……77
Verbatim copy…….….….…………………….…………..…………………85
Partial copy…….….….…………………………….…….…………………85
Students’ Perceptions of the Reading-to-write Task………………….…….…87
Students’ Perceptions of the Usefulness of the Writing Prompt…….…….…88
Students’ Perceptions of Structures and Organization of the Writing Prompt………………………………………………………….…………..96
Students’ Perceptions of Information Borrowed from the Writing Prompt 100
Students’ Perceptions of Writing Techniques………….……….….……….…102
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS………………….………….…………..……107
Conclusions………….………….………….………….…………..………….107
Pedagogical Implications………….………….…….……….……….………110
Suggestions for Future Research………….…….……………….….……….112

REFERENCES…………………….….………….…………………..……………114

APPENDICES…….…………………….……………….…………….….….….…122
Appendix A: The Independent Writing Task’s Writing Prompt of the GEPT High-intermediate Level….……………………..…….…………..…………122
Appendix B: The Instructions of the Independent Writing Task..……….…123
Appendix C: The Instructions of the Reading-to-write Task……….………124
Appendix D: The Reading Article of the Reading-to-write Task….…….…125
Appendix E: The Writing Instructions of the GEPT Advanced Level’s Online Open Preliminary Examination Model………………………..……127
Appendix F:Fry’s Graph for Estimating Readability………….……………129
Appendix G: The Interview Form……………………………………………130
Appendix H: The Research Consent Form…………..….…….….…………131
Appendix I: The Analytic Scoring Scale for Grading Written Essays…..…132
Appendix J: The Decomposed and Coded Reading Material………………135
Appendix K: The Participant’s Reading-to-write Essay (Sample 1).…..…138
Appendix L: The Participant’s Reading-to-write Essay (Sample 2)….……139
Appendix M: Examples of Specific Phrases Generalized by the Participants………………………….…………………………………….….141

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The procedure flow chart of the study…………………………..….46
Figure 2 The decomposed and coded paragraph five of the reading material………..49
Figure 3. The example of a good summary from the participants’ written essay……75
Figure4. The example of a less proficient summary from the participants’ written essay……………………………………………………………..……76

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Paired Sample Pared T-test of Participants’ Performances on the Independent Writing Task and the Reading-to-write Task…….……54
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Independent Writing Task and the Reading-to-write Task……….….………….….………….……………………58
Table 3 The Participants’ Scores, Mean T-units of Borrowed Information, and Percentage of Borrowed Information Used in the Reading-to-write Task……….….…60
Table 4 Frequency of Use of Information Borrowed from the Writing Prompt.…..…..62
Table 5 The Participants’ Frequency and Percentage of Use of Writing Techniques..70
Table 6 Comparisons between the Writing Prompt and the Participants’ Partial Copies……………………………………………….…………………85
Table 7 Students’ Self Responses on Their Experiences of Writing Reading-to-write Tasks……………………………………………………….…………89
Table 8 Students’ Self-reflections on the Usefulness of the Writing Prompt90
Table 9 Reasons that Students Perceived Reading Article is Useful for Writing.……..91
Table 10 Students’ Self-reflections on Influences of the Writing Prompt on Organization ..………………………………..….……………………..……96
Asencion, Y. (2004). Validation of reading-to-write assessment tasks performed by second language learners (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (Order No. 3138530).
Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bloch, J. (2008). Plagiarism across cultures: Is there a difference. In C. Eisner & M. Vicinus (Eds.), Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the digital age (pp. 219–230). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 311–322.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Carson, J. G. (1993). Reading for writing: Cognitive perspectives. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Second language perspectives (pp. 85-104). USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5-43.
Davis, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Second language perspectives (pp. 105-127). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Educational Testing Service. (2014). TOEFL iBT Writing Section Scoring Guide (PDF). Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/Writing_Rubrics.pdf
Educational Testing Service. (2014). TOEFL iBT Writing Sample Responses. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/ibt_writing_sample_responses.pdf
Educational Testing Service. (2014). Writing Topics. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/989563wt.pdf
Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flahive, D., & Bailey, N. (1993). Exploring reading / writing relationships in adult second language learners. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 128-140). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Flower, L. (1990b). Introduction: Studying cognition in context. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. (pp. 1-32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, H. R. & Aaron, J. E. (2010). The little, brown handbook (11th ed.). London: Pearson Education International.
Fry, E. (1991). Ten best ideas for reading teachers. The United States of America: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242-261). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., Kaplan, R. B. (1997). Teaching the writing course. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartmann (Eds.), Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education (pp.172-197). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. (1st ed. pp. 69-87). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Harmer, J. (2009). How to teach English (5th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Harwood, N. & Petric ́, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication, 29, 55–103.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Hirvela, A. & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 87-98.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 267–341.
Kroll, B. (1993). Teaching writing is teaching reading: Training the new teacher of ESL composition. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Second language perspectives (pp. 61-83). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Huang, H. J. (2009). Essay topic writability examined through a statistical approach from the college writer’s perspective. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 79-85.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowly, Mass: Newbury House.
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
Lee, Y.-W., Gentile, C., & Kantor, R. (2008). Analytic scoring of TOEFL CBT essays: Scores from humans and E-rater. (Research Report RR-81). Retrieved from Educational Testing Service website: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-01.pdf
Leki, I. & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69.
Liu, F. (2010). A short analysis of the nature of reading. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 152-157.
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann ELT.
Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing other’s words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201-230.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13, 111-129.
Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561-587.
Plakans, L. & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17, 18-34.
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2005). Borrowing words and ideas: Insights from Japanese L1 writers. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15, 31–56.
Shaw, P. & Pecorari, D. (2013). Source use in academic writing: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, A1-A3.
Smith, F. (1983). Reading like a writer. Language Arts, 60, 558-567.
Stein, V. (1990a). Exploring the cognition of reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. (pp. 119-143). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stein, V. (1990b). Elaboration: Using what you know. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. (pp. 119-143). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
The Language Training and Testing Center. (2010). GEPT score data summary: 2010 test year. Retrieved from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/GEPT_ScoreR_Doc/Score%20Data%20Summary%20for%202010%20GEPT.pdf
The Language Training and Testing Center. (2011). GEPT score data summary: 2011 test year. Retrieved from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/GEPT_ScoreR_Doc/Score%20Data%20Summary%20for%202011%20GEPT.pdf
The Language Training and Testing Center. (2012). GEPT score data summary: 2012 test year. Retrieved from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/GEPT_ScoreR_Doc/2012%20GEPT%20Test%20Report.pdf
The Language Training and Testing Center. (2014). The General English Proficiency Test high-intermediate sample test. Retrieved from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/geptpracticehi.htm
Thompson, C., Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2013). Where from, who, why and how? A study of the use of sources by first year L2 university students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 99-109.
Tsang, W.-K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 210-233.
Uemlianin, I. A. (2000). Engaging text: assessing paraphrase and understanding. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 347–358.
Wallance, R., Pearman, C., Hail, C., & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension. Reading Horizons, 48(7), 41-56.
Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-write tasks for the assessment of second language academic writing skills: Investigating text features and rater reactions (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (Order No. 3017414).
Watson, C. B. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 95-104.
Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading handwriting in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9, 27-55. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.002.
Wu, R.-J. R. (2013). Native and non-native students’ interaction with a text-based prompt. Assessing Writing, 18, 202-217.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 463-485. doi: 10.2307/3587174.
Zhu, W. (2005). Source articles as scaffolds in reading to write: A case of a Chinese student writing in English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 129-152.
LiveABC 互動英語教學集團. (2013). 是福?是禍?3D立體列印科技的兩難. CNN互動英語 (CNN Interactive English), 154, 10-15.
LIVE互動英語. (2013). 3-D列印開創新視界. LIVE互動英語 (LIVE Interactive English), 147, 36-37.
李玉梅(譯)(2009)。閱讀的力量 : 從研究中獲得的啟示(原作者:Stephen D. Krashen)。臺北市:心理。(原著出版年:1993)
財團法人語言訓練測驗中心. (2012). 高級寫作能力測驗預試試題. 2014年4月20日,取自https://www.gept.org.tw/Exam_Intro/down04.asp
姜勇 (Jiang, Y.).(2012)。“以讀促寫”對高中生英文寫作質量影響的研究(未出版之碩士論文)。揚州大學,江蘇省。
鄧佳妮 (Deng, J. N.).(2012)。“以讀促寫”在初中英語教學中的實證研究(未出版之碩士論文)。南京師範大學,江蘇省。
韓娟 (Han, J.).(2010)。 “以讀促寫” 對英語專業學生寫作質量的影響(未出版之碩士論文)。揚州大學,江蘇省。

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
1. 邱思慈、陳聰廉(2005)。台南縣瑜珈運動參與者的休閒滿意度、工作滿意度與生活滿意度之研究。運動休閒管理學報,2(2),37-47。
2. 金惠敏(2007)。消費時代的社會美學。哲學與文化,396,頁119-135。
3. 林瑞欽(1994)。社區意識的概念、測量與提振策略。社會發展研究學刊,1,1-21。
4. 劉怡蘋(2007)。獨立策展人的「作者功用」與當代藝術館。藝術觀點,31,頁59-64。
5. 林瑞欽 (1995)。社區意識凝聚之道。社會福利,118,8-17。
6. 岩切澪(2005)。鹽田純一:策展人的專業性必須被尊重。藝術家,359,頁
7. 林振春 (1995)。凝聚社會意識,建構社區文化。台北:社區發展季刊,69,25
8. 高千惠(1999a)。永遠的藝術新新黨─史澤曼卅十年彌新的展覽觀念。藝術家,
9. 林振春(1994)。如何凝聚社區意識,整建社區社會。理論與政策,32,25-39。
10. 林平(2005a)。藝術展覽的價值和空間的關係。博物館學季刊,19,頁29-37。
11. 李晶(2004)。居民參與校園休閒活動社區意識之影響研究:以台北市國民中學為例。體育學報。
12. 吳秀瑾(2004)。文化品味與庸俗批判:布爾迪厄文化思想論判。東吳哲學學報,
13. 肖小穗(2000)。權力語藝批評初探。傳播文化,8,頁149-175。
14. 10. 蔡志方,<論各級學校教評會評審行為之法律性質及其救濟―兼評釋字第四六二號解釋>,月旦法學雜誌第41期,1998年10月,第125頁。
15. 李茂能(2012)。變項中心化與多元共線性的玄機,測驗統計年刊,20,25-52。
 
無相關點閱論文