臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討合作式創意寫作中不同程度的任務限制(task constraints)如何影響台灣英語學習者的討論過程與創意寫作作品。此外，本研究亦調查學習者對於任務限制對其寫作表現之態度。本研究欲探討的四個重點為：第一，任務限制對於學習者創意寫作作品的創意、語言正確度、美感之影響。第二，任務限制對於學習者互動頻率之影響。第三，任務限制對於學習者互動過程之影響。第四，學習者對於任務限制之態度。
本研究採用個案研究法(case study)，參與本研究的對象為28名就讀於南部兩所大學的外文系學生。資料收集的方式為訪談和學生的討論，期間為二零一七年三月至五月。學生作品的創意、語言正確度、美感則以共識評量技術邀請六位英語領域專家衡量之。研究者亦使用Elabdali (2016)的創意思考框架、Storch (2005)的合作式寫作框架與Kim and Taguchi (2015)的語用相關片段(pragmatic-related episodes)作為本研究的分析架構。本研究獲致之主要發現如下：
1. 在頭韻詩(alliterative poem)和自由詩(free poem)的兩項創意寫作活動中，學習者皆可創作出有創意與美感的作品。但學習者寫作作品的語言正確度在頭韻詩明顯高於自由詩。
2. 頭韻詩的寫作活動產生較多的學習者互動。但就各項討論片段的百分比而言，此兩項寫作活動產生的比例接近。
3. 在兩項創意寫作活動中，學習者的互動過程相似。尤其是學習者的探索性思考(exploratory thinking)與精密性思考(elaborative thinking)在此兩項創意活動中皆頻繁地相鄰出現。這說明了兩項創意寫作活動中的限制對學生的創意生成(idea generation)有相似的影響。
4. 學習者表示他們的寫作焦點被任務限制所影響，並且他們認為格式任務限制與語意任務限制皆是他們創意的靈感來源。他們亦強調創意思考與個人的英語能力有所相關。
本研究建議三項關於合作式創意寫作活動的應用。第ㄧ，若對學生在合作式創意寫作中的語言正確度有疑慮的英語教師，建議可以在寫作活動加入格式限制。第二，建議英語教師採用合作式創意寫作來鼓勵學生在語言領域中探索並產生創意思維。第三，改善學習者的英語能力，對於提升他們產生創意思維的能力可能最具成效。
對於後續研究的建議：第ㄧ，研究者可招募更多不同英語程度的的學習者，在進行深入研究。第二，研究者可將可能影響學生產生創意思考的認知因素(cognitive factors)一併列入研究範圍。

The aim of this study was to explore how degrees of task constraints on collaborative creative poetry-writing tasks affected Taiwanese EFL learners’ discussion and final creative products. In addition, this study examined the attitudes held by the learners towards the effects of the task constraints on their writing performance. The four main focuses of the study included: 1) the effects of task constraints on EFL learners’ creativity, linguistic accuracy and aesthetics of final creative products, 2) the effects of task constraints on EFL learners’ intensity of interaction, 3) the effects of task constraints on EFL learners’ interaction process, and 4) EFL learners’ perceptions towards the effects of task constraints on their writing.
This study adopted a case study approach focusing on 28 participants from the English department at two universities in southern Taiwan. Data were collected from interviews and learners’ discussion during tasks from March to May in 2017. The learners’ creative products were judged using the Consensual Assessment Technique proposed by Amabile (1996). Six judges assessed the 28 poems and evaluated their creativity, linguistic accuracy and aesthetics. Moreover, Elabdali’s (2016) framework to examine creativity, Storch’s (2005) framework for collaborative writing, and Kim and Taguchi’s (2015) idea of pragmatic-related episodes were adopted to form the analytical framework for this research.
This study showed the following results:
1. The learners could write creative and aesthetic products, no matter whether they wrote the alliterative poem (with the semantic constraint and the formal constraint) or the free poem (with the same semantic constraint and without the formal constraint). Nevertheless, linguistically speaking, the learners’ alliterative poems had a higher accuracy rate.
2. The constraints in the alliterative poem elicited more intense interaction among the learners. However, with regard to the percentages of the learners’ focus area, the alliterative poem and the free poem showed similar percentages.
3. In terms of idea generation episodes, the learners’ interaction process of these two poems was similar. Especially, their exploratory thinking episodes and elaborative thinking episodes were adjacently repeated.
4. The learners reported that their focus of the tasks was affected by the formal constraint and the semantic constraint. They considered both the formal constraint and the semantic constraint could inspire their creativity, and they believed an individual’s English proficiency was tied with the abilities to use language creatively.
This study provides three implications for collaborative creative writing activities. First, if EFL instructors are concerned that students may prioritize creative ideas over linguistic accuracy, the instructors are encouraged to impose formal constraints on collaborative creative writing activities. Second, to engage students in idea generation and exploration in the language domain, it is recommended that EFL instructors adopt collaborative creative writing activities. Third, improving students’ English proficiency may contribute to their creative thinking in collaborative creative writing activities.
Finally, two directions for future research are offered. First, future research can recruit more EFL learners with different English proficiency levels. Second, future research can take potential cognitive factors into consideration because cognitive factors may affect EFL learners’ creative potential.

論文審定書 i
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ii
摘要 iv
ABSTRACT vi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Needs for the Study 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study 4
1.4 Research Questions 5
1.5 Significance of the Study 5
1.6 Definition of Terms 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 The Social-constructivist View of Second Language Learning 9
2.1.1 Collective Scaffolding 10
2.1.2 Peer-peer Collaborative Dialogue 12
2.2 Language Creativity 13
2.2.1 Language Creativity and Language Play 14
2.2.2 Factors Affecting Language Creativity 16
2.3 Collaborative Writing 20
2.3.1 Process of Collaborative Writing 20
2.3.2 Creativity in Collaborative Writing 22
2.3.3 Learners’ Attitudes Towards Collaborative Writing 25
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 28
3.1 Research Design 28
3.2 Participants 29
3.3 Research Instruments 30
3.3.1 Creative Poetry-Writing Tasks 30
3.3.2 Semi-structured Interview 32
3.4 Data Collection Procedure 33
3.5 Data Analysis 36
3.5.1 Qualitative Analysis 36
3.5.1.1 Classification and Coding of Episodes 36
3.5.2 Quantitative Analysis 45
3.5.2.1 Evaluation of Learners’ Creative Poems: Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) 45
3.5.2.2 Descriptive Analysis and Statistical Comparison 46
3.6 Pilot Study 47
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49
4.1 Effects of Task Constraints on Creativity, Linguistic Accuracy, Aesthetics Levels of Students’ Creative Poems 49
4.2 Effects of Task Constraints on Learners Interaction 55
4.3 Effects of Task Constraints on Students’ Creative Thinking 58
4.4 Degree of Constraints on Creative Poetry Writing and Learners’ Perception 67
4.5 Summary 74
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 77
5.1 Summary of the Study 77
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 78
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 80
REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX A: Creative Poetry-writing Tasks 91
APPENDIX B: The Comic Strip 93
APPENDIX C: Interview Questions 94
APPENDIX D: Consent Form 95

Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54, 277-310.
Alegrı´a de la Colina, A., & Garcı´a Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. Garcı´a Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91-116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bishop, W. (2001). Against the odds in composition and rhetoric. College Composition and Communication, 53(2), 322-335.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent self in foreign language study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(1), 13-39.
Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192-218.
Bell, N. D. (2012a). Formulaic language, creativity, and language play in a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 189-205.
Bell, N. D. (2012b). Comparing playful and nonplayful incidental attention to form. Language Learning, 62(1), 236-265.
Belz, J. A., & Reinhardt, J. (2004). Aspects of advanced foreign language proficiency: Internet‐mediated German language play. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 324-362.
Basterrechea, M., & Mayo, M. P. G. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough, & A. Mackey, (Eds.), Second Language Interaction in Diverse Educational Contexts (pp. 25-44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT journal, 51(3), 224-231.
Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. University of Chicago Press.
Carter, R. (1999). Common language: corpus, creativity and cognition. Language and Literature, 8(3), 195-216.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carter, R. A., & McCarthy, M. J. (1995). Discourse and creativity: Bridging the gap between language and literature. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 303-321). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. J. (2004). Talking, creating: interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 62-88.
Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children''s L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 169-191.
Cheng, Y. Y., Wang, W. C., Liu, K. S., & Chen, Y. L. (2010). Effects of association instruction on fourth graders’ poetic creativity in Taiwan. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 228-235.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58.
Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71.
Geisel, T. S. (1960). Green eggs and ham. New York: Random House.
Garland, J. (2010). “I am under cool”: humorous mock-translation as a claim to expertise in an Irish language class. Sociolinguistic Studies, 4(1), 27-44.
Hopper, R., Knapp, M. L., & Scott, L. (1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 31(1), 23-33.
Haught-Tromp, C. (2016). Facilitating creative thinking in the 21st century: When constraints help. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (pp. 107-117). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Haught-Tromp, C. (2017). The Green Eggs and Ham hypothesis: How constraints facilitate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 10-17.
Johnson, M. (2004). Vygotsky''s social cultural theory and second language learning. In M. Johnson (Ed.), A philosophy of second language acquisition (pp. 129-169). London: Yale University.
Joyce, C. K. (2009). The blank page: effects of constraint on creativity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kim, K. H. (2008). Underachievement and creativity: Are gifted underachievers highly creative? Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 234-242.
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211-234.
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.
Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL learners. Language Awareness, 14(4), 221-238.
Lantolf, J. P. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In A. Pérez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3-24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectic approach to L2 research. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57-72). London, UK: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. London: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second-language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
Lantolf, J. P., Throne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Ministry of Education (2002). White paper on creative education: Establishing a republic of creativity (R. O. C.) for Taiwan. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
McCafferty, K. (2005). William Carleton between Irish and English: using literary dialect to study language contact and change. Language and literature, 14(4), 339-362.
Mayer, M. (2006, February). Creativity loves constraints. Business Week. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-02-12/creativity-loves-constraints
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maybin, J., & Swann, J. (2007). Everyday creativity in language: Textuality, contextuality, and critique. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 497-517.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.
National Academy for Educational Research. (2015).十二年國民基本教育課程綱要(國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校):語文領域-英語文(草案) [Curriculum outlines for the Twelve-Year Curriculum for Basic Education (primary schools, middle schools, and ordinary senior high schools): Language field—English (draft)]. Retrieved from http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-10609,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
Oaks, D. D. (1994). Creating structural ambiguities in humor: Getting English grammar to cooperate. HUMOR, 7(4), 377-401.
Ottó, I. (1998). The relationship between individual differences in learner creativity and language learning success. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 763-773.
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human development, 15(1), 1-12.
Perry, C. (2010). Seven: A collaborative creative writing activity. In Stewart, A. (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 565-575). Tokyo: JALT
Pomerantz, A., & Bell, N. D. (2007). Learning to play, playing to learn: FL learners as multicompetent language users. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 556-578.
Parker, K., & Chao, J. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-learning and Learning Objects, 3(1), 57-72.
Ritchie, G. (2010). Linguistic factors in humour. In D. Chiaro (Ed.), Translation, Humour and Literature. (pp.33-48). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Sandburg, C. (1970). The complete poems of Carl Sandburg. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Social cultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275-302.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001a). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In P. S. M. Bygate & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). London: Longman.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001b). What two learners notice in their reformulated 　　　　　　　writing, what they learn from it and their insights into the process. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, MO.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Taking it through: Two French immersion learners'' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 171-185.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2010). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students'' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M. Garcı´a Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sterling, S., & Loewen, S. (2015). The occurrence of teacher-initiated playful LREs in a Spanish L2 classroom. System, 53, 73-83.
Tarone, E. (2000). Getting serious about language play: Language play, interlanguage variation and second language acquisition. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 31-54). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Tarone, E. (2002). Frequency effects, noticing, and creativity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 287-296.
Tin, T. B. (2010). Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative writing tasks. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 215-235.
Tin, T. B. (2011). Language learning creativity through acrostics. The Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 9, 175-180.
Tin, T. B. (2013). Towards creativity in ELT: The need to say something new. Elt Journal, 67(4), 385-397.
Vass, E. (2002). Friendship and collaborative creative writing in the primary classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 102-110.
Vass, E. (2004). Understanding collaborative creativity. An observational study of young children’s classroom-based joint creative writing. In D. Miell & K. Littleton (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: Contemporary perspectives. London: Free Association Books.
Vass, E. (2007). Exploring processes of collaborative creativity–The role of emotions in children''s joint creative writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 107-117.
Vass, E., Littleton, K., Jones, A., & Miell, D. (2014). The affectively constituted dimensions of creative interthinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 63-77.
Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Jones, A. (2008). The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 192-202.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warner, C. N. (2004). It''s just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 69-87.
Wang, L. (2014). The scientific study of hypnosis—Take the study of hypnosis and creativity as an example. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Central University, Taiwan, ROC.
Wang, H. C. (2012). Predictability of English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation in Taiwanese freshmen''s recognition and production of creative metaphors in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan, ROC.
Wang, H. C. (2018). “Let’s Think Creatively”: Designing a high school lesson on metaphorical creativity for English L2 learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(5), 543-551.
Wang, H. C., & Cheng, Y. S. (2016). Dissecting language creativity: English proficiency, creativity, and creativity motivation as predictors in EFL learners’ metaphoric creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 205.
Wang, H. C., Cheng, Y. S., Chen, P. H., & Su, S. Z. (2016). Cultural effects on English language teachers'' judgments of metaphoric creativity: A mixed-methods approach. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1002/jocb.167
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Yeh, H. C. (2014). Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 23-37.
Zamani, M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping of Iranian EFL learners in a writing context. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1-11.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58.