臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

英文寫作一直是英文為外語國家的英語教學中的重要議題。以往以結果為導向的教學方式，很容易忽略寫作的過程。目前，英文寫作教學尚未納入國中的英文課程。本研究旨在探究我國國中學生在合作學習英文寫作中如何創意的思考過程，剖析學生個人與協同寫作創意過程的異同，並比較分析高、低成就學生寫作創意過程的異同。本研究採有聲思考方法收集資料，並做博多稿分析。研究問題有三: (一) 我國國中學生如何透過合作學習英文寫作產生創意？(二)學生的創意在個人和合作英文寫作中有沒有差異? 如果有的話，差別何在?為什麼？(三)高成就和低成就學生在英文寫作的創意過程有何異同？研究對象為八個國中二年級學生，以同質性分組，分別在四十分鐘的時間內，用有聲思考的方式練習個別寫作和合作寫作。結果顯示：大多數高、低成就學生在個別與合作寫作時，共同的創意是描述人物的外表、嗜好、能力與個性。高分組學生除此之外，具體觀念與抽象概念兼備。低成就學生則大概集中於描述人物的外觀、嗜好、能力與個性。
合作寫作時，高、低分組的學生大部分使用中文語碼、少部分使用英文語碼，偶而使用台語語碼來創意。他們也都會中、英文夾雜，語碼互換與混合，有時超越語句邊際限制，句內與句際間雙語語碼交互使用。差別在於語碼互換的數量與方向性。高分組學生用得較多，且多由英文轉中文，再轉回英文。低分組的學生較少語碼互換，他們大多數以中文創意，也有可能始自中文創意，間或轉至英文，但大部分都會轉回中文，並止於中文概念。
本研究對於未來國中階段英文寫作教學，尤其是合作寫作教學，具有相當豐富的學術與實務參考價值。利用有聲思考的博多稿分析，本研究不僅揭露了學生如何產出他們的創意，也提供學界在國中階段從事英文寫作教學時，更進一步認識學生英文寫作的認知歷程。最後，本研究也提出了一些教學上的建議。

The present study aims, first, to investigate how junior high school students generated their ideas through cooperative and individual writing, secondly, to observe if students’ idea generation varied in writing the cooperative text or individual text, and if so, how and why, and, thirdly, to examine the similarities and differences in the high achievers’ and low achievers’ idea generation processes. As an on-going issue in EFL teaching, English writing classes are often given through product-oriented instruction, which somehow overlooks the process of writing. So far, English writing classes have not been formally offered in junior high school English classrooms in Taiwan yet. The present study was to probe into the writing processes of the junior high school students in their English classrooms. Three research questions were addressed: (1) How do the students generate their ideas through cooperative learning? (2) Does students’ idea generation vary in writing a cooperative text or individual text? If so, how and why? (3) To what extent do the idea generation processes of high-achievers differ from those of the low-achievers? Eight 8th-grade students were homogeneously teamed into two groups to do cooperative writing as well as individual writing. Within 40 minutes each, students’ individual and cooperative writing processes were recorded as their thinking-aloud protocols. These data were transcribed to analyze how students generated their ideas to form their writings.
Major findings are: (1) in writing their individual and cooperative texts, most students were capable of generating ideas in the appearance category, the hobbies category, the ability category, and the personality category in common. While low achievers mainly focused on these categories, high achievers seemed to take not only concrete concepts but also abstract notions into consideration. (2) In writing their cooperative texts, both high and low achievers generated their ideas mostly in Mandarin Chinese, partly in English, and sporadically in Taiwanese. They tended to switch and mix their language codes inter-sententially and intra-sententially. Differences are in the total amount and the directionalities of code-switching. While high achievers code-switched and code-mixed more frequently and shuttled between English and Mandarin Chinese, and finally went back to English, low achievers less frequently manipulated their language codes by code-switching and code-mixing, mostly from Mandarin Chinese to English and then from English back to Chinese.
This study has cast a significant insight for English writing instruction, especially cooperative writing practices, which can be implemented in junior high school English classrooms. Through analyzing students’ verbal protocols, this study unveiled the ways in which students generated their ideas in individual and collaborative writing, and provided for the TESOL professionals another window to look into students’ idea-generation cognitive writing processes. Finally, some pedagogical implications are provided as well.

Acknowledgements I
Abstract (Chinese) II
Abstract (English) IV
Table of Contents VII
List of Tables XI
List of Figures XII
Chapter One Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Rationale of the Study 3
1.3 Motivation 4
1.4 Purposes of the Present Study 5
1.5 Definitions of Terms 6
1.5.1 Process-writing 6
1.5.2 Cooperative learning 6
1.5.3 Idea generation 7
Chapter Two Review of Related Literature 8
2.1 Product-oriented Writing Approach 8
2.2 Process-oriented Writing Approach 9
2.3 Idea Generation in English Writing 11
2.4 Code Switching 13
2.5 Protocol Analysis 15
2.6 Cooperative Learning and Writing 17
2.7 Interpersonal Skills 18
Chapter Three Methodology 21
3.1 Participants 21
3.2 Instruments 24
3.3 The Task 25
3.4 Data–Collection Procedures 26
3.5 Data-Analysis Procedures 28
3.6 Analytical Procedures 32
3.7 The Pilot Study 33
3.7.1 Purposes of the Pilot Study 33
3.7.2 Participants 34
3.7.3 Task 34
3.7.4 Data–Collection Procedures 35
3.7.5 Data-Analysis Procedures 36
3.7.6 Findings 37
Chapter Four Results 40
4.1. Introduction 40
4.2. How Do the Students Generate Their Ideas Through Writing? 40
4.2.1. The Ways in Which Students Generated Their Ideas in English Writing 41
4.2.2. The Language Codes Used in Idea Generation 44
4.2.3. The Code-switching Directionalities in Idea Generation 45
4.2.4. The Codes Mixed and Paralleled in the Ideas Generated 51
4.3 Does Students’ Idea Generation Vary in Writing a Cooperative Text or Individual Text? If So, How And Why? 59
4.4 To What Extent Do the Idea Generation Processes of High-Achievers (HA) Differ from Low-Achievers (LA)? 64
4.5 Summary 69
4.6 Discussion 72
Chapter Five Conclusion 75
5.1 Summary of the Major Findings 75
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 78
5.3 Limitations of the Study 80
5.4 Suggestions for Further Studies 81
References 84
Appendix A 99
Appendix B 100
Appendix C 101
Appendix D 112
List of Tables
Table 4.2.1.1. The Total Frequencies of Occurrences of the Ideas Generated and Their Categories 42
Table 4.3.1. LG2’s Idea Generation Across Different Texts 60
Table 4.3.2. HG2’s Idea Generation Across Different Texts 62
Table 4.4.1. Total Amount of Ideas Generated by LAs in Individual Texts 65
Table 4.4.2 Total Amount of Ideas Generated of HA in Individual Texts 65
Table 4.4.3. Ideas Generated in Comparison (LG1 vs. HG1 ) 67
Table 4.4.4. Ideas Generated in Comparison (LG2 vs. HG2) 68
List of Figures
Figure 3.1.1 The High and Low Achiever Groups and Subgroups 23
Figure 3.5.1 Code-switching Directionalities in Idea Generation 31

Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990). Objectives of Education for Accountants. Position Statement No. One. Torrance, CA: AECC.
Adams, D. M. & Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C. & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using iT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative tele-learning. MIS Quarterly, 19 (3), 293-312.
Amita R. H. (2006). Families, Children and Communities in a Multicultural and Diverse Society. Research Paper on Curriculum Models. Nova Southeastern University.
Applebee, A.N. (1981). Looking at writing. Educational Leadership, 458-462.


Atwell, N. (1990). Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in the Intermediate Grades. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. D. (1983). The syntax of Arabic-French code-switching. Lingua 59: 301-30.
Beretier, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bista, K. (2010). Factors of code switching among bilingual English students in the university classroom: A survey. English for Specific Purposes World, 29, 1–19.
Bohlmeyer, E., & Burke, J. (1987). Selecting cooperative learning techniques: A consultative strategy. School Psychology Review 76: 36-40.
Brice, A. (2000). Code switching and code mixing in the ESL classroom: A study of pragmatic and syntactic features. Advances in Speech Language Pathology. Journal of the Speech Pathology Association of Australia, 20(1), 19-28.
Burton, C. B. (1987). Problems in children’s peer relationships: A broadening perspective. In L. G. Katz (Eds.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 4). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chen, D. W. (陳達武). (1999). The connections between L1 and L2 writing performances – From the perspective of writing expertise. In Department of English, National Changhua University of Education (ed.). (1999), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, pp. 271 – 290.
Chen, D. C. R. & Tseng, D. S. D. (2015). An Analysis of Junior High School Students’ Idea-Generation Processes in English Writing through Cooperative Learning, Paper Presented at The 2015 ELT Conference: Innovations in Language Teaching and Business Communication May 29, 2015 (2015第10屆朝陽科技大學應用英語學術研討會，2015年5月29日, 星期五)。
Chen, Y. M. (陳玉美) (1998). 國內英文作文教學之回顧與展望 (A Retrospection on Domestic English Writing Instruction)。Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (1998), pp. 331-344.
Cheng, C. K. (1998).The Use of think-aloud protocols in investigation of second language reading. Paper presented at the 1998-9 Seminar, English Department, Chinese Culture University.
Chou, H. L. (2002). An action research on the implement of cooperative learning for the unit of factorization in math classes for the eighth graders. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Cohen, E. G. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 64, No.1, pp. 1-35.
Cohen, E. (1984).The desegregated school. In N. Miller and M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Looking behind the curtain: What do L2 composition ratings really mean? TESOL Quarterly, 29, 762–765.

Cooper, J., Robinson, P., & McKinney, M. (1993). Cooperative learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, N., & Leary, P. O. (eds.) (1990). Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Emig, J. (1983). Writing as a mode of learning. In J. Emig, D. Goswami, & M. Butler (Eds.), The web of meaning: Essays on writing, teaching, learning, and thinking (pp. 122–131).
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1987) Verbal reports on thinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds), Introspection in second language research (pp. 24–53). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 5– 23). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Feng, H. P. (2000). Writing from sources in an EFL context: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (2000), pp.310- 321.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1): 21-32.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981).A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Gan, Z. (2009). ‘Asian Learners’ Re-examined: An Empirical Study of Language Learning Attitudes, Strategies and Motivation among Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong Students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30(1), 41-58.
Gordon, W. (1961), Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity, New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed.)(pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two language: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gunning, G.T. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, Linda S. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes, in Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Lee Gregg and Erwin Steinberg (ed.) (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980), pp. 3-30.
Hagman, S. (1990). The community of inquiry: An approach to collaborative learning. Studies in Art Education, 31(3), 149–157.
Hoffman, J. (1998). When bad things happen to good ideas in literacy education: Professional dilemmas, personal decisions, and political traps. Reading Teacher, 52 (2), 102-113.
Humes, Ann. (1983). Research on the composing process, Review of Educational Research,53.2:201-216
Hwang, N. C. R., G. Lui, & M. Y. J. W. Tong. 2005. An empirical test of cooperative learning in a passive learning environment. Issues in Accounting Education 20 (2): 151–165.
Jacobs, G. M. & Ward, C. (2000). Analyzing Student-Student Interaction from Cooperative Learning and Systemic Functional Perspective. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(4). Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization Regional Language Center, Republic of Singapore.
Jbeili, I. M. A. (2003).The effects of metacognitive scaffolding and cooperative learning on mathematics performance and mathematical reasoning among fifth-grade students in Jordan. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Sains, Malaysia.
Jingxia, L, 2010. Teachers' code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 3: 10-23.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom [M], Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, (17).
Johnson D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A.(1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623 – 655.
Kuo, S. L. & Tseng, D. S. D.. (1986). Writing as a cognitive process: A protocol analysis. Papers Presented at the Third Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. at Changhua, Taiwan, pp. 263-280.
Leki, I. (1991). Teaching second language writing: Where we seem to be. English Teacher Forum, April: 8-11.
Lightner, S. 1981. Accounting education and participatory group dynamics. Collegiate News and Views XXXV (Fall): 5.9.
Li, D. C. S. 2000. Cantonese-English code-switching research in Hong Kong: A Y2K review. World Englishes, 19.3: 305-22.
Lightner, S. 1981. Accounting education and participatory group dynamics. Collegiate News and Views, XXXV(Fall): 5.9.
Lin, C. H. (2002).A research on cooperative learning: The relationship between the learning effects for mechanics and class atmosphere for students in vocational high school. MA thesis, National Changhua University of Education.
Liu P. (2006) Code-switching and code-mixing, Scholary paper: University of Stuttgart.
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 219-237.
Mahon, T. (1992). From sentence to story: A process approach to the development of composition skills in the primary school. In M. Lau and M. Murphy (Eds.) Developing writing: Purposes and practices, Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.
Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing Learning-and More! Through Cooperative Learning. Idea Paper # 38, p. 1. The Idea Center, 211 South Seth Child Road Manhattan.
Moran, J. W., Talbot, R. P. & Benson, R. M. (1990). A guide to graphical problem-solving. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Murray, D. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T.R. Donovan and B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3-20).
Naseh, L. (1997). Code switching between Persian and Swedish, Eurosla 7 Proceedings: 201-211.

Newell, A. & A. H. Simmon. (1993). Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner’s.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving, (3rd ed.) New York: Scribner.
Oster, L. (2001). Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55, pp. 64-69. 

Pennington, M. C. & Cheung, M. (1995). Factors shaping the introduction of process writing in Hong Kong secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(1), 1-20.
Pennington, M. C. (1996). When input becomes intake: Tracing the sources of teachers’ attitude change. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching, pp. 320-348. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perl, S. (1980a). A look at basic writers in the process of composing. In L Kasden, & D. Hoeber (Eds.) Basic Writing. Urbana Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31, 363-369.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching, Linguistics 18: 581-618.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
Randall, A., Fairbanks, M. M., & Kennedy, M. L. (1986). Using think-aloud protocols diagnostically with college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 25 (4), 240-253.
Reyes, M. D. L. L. (1991a). A process approach to literacy using dialogue journals and literature logs with second language learners. Research in the Teaching of English 25,(3), 291-313.
Rushatz, T. A. (1992). Cooperative learning: An examination of attitudes toward cooperative learning and its effectiveness. B.S. Thesis. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Schwartz, D. L., Black, J. B. & Strange, J. (1991) “Dyads have a fourfold advantage over individuals inducing abstract rules,” Proceedings of the American Education Research Association, (April), Chicago, IL, American Education Research Assn.
Seow, A. (1995). The writing process and process writing. TELL, 11(1), 60-63.
Shimazoe, J. & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58, 52-57.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, edited by R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82.
Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning, (pp. 145–173). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all: Contexts of learning. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Steele, V. (2004). Product and process writing: a comparison. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/product-process- writing- a- Comparison.

Stewart, M. & Cheung, M. 1989. Introducing a process approach in the teaching of writing in Hong Kong. Institute of Language in Educational Journal 6, pp. 41-48.
Stringer, S., Morton, R., & Bonikowski, M. (1999). Learning disabled students: Using process writing to build autonomy and self-esteem. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26 (3), 1-7.
Swarts, Heidi., Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1984). “Designing protocol studies of the writing process: An introduction,” In Beach, Richard., and Lillian S. Bridwell. (eds.) (1984). New Directions in Composition Research. New York: The Guilford Press, pp.53-71.
Tsai, M. J. (蔡銘津)（2009）. 寫作的構思策略及其在寫作教學上的應用(Planning strategies in writing and their applications in writing pedagogy)。樹德人文社會電子集刊，5 卷，第 1 期，頁 19-35。2013 年 5 月 11 日，取自 http://www.css.stu.edu.tw/ studies/studies_no1.html
Tseng, D. S. D. (2002). 英文寫作過程教學 (English writing process instruction). 講於國立雲林科技大學「英文閱讀寫作教學工作坊」。91.11.22. (A talk given in the Reading and Writing Instruction Workshop, sponsored by National Yun-lin University of Science and Technology, Nov. 22, 2002.)
Tseng，D. S. D. (2008). 談英文作文的組織與創意(On the organization and generation of ideas in English writing)。研習資訊(Retraining Information)，《國立教育研究院研習資訊雙月刊》(Journal of National Institute of Education Research, Bimonthly), 第25卷，第2期，頁27 -37 。
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F. & Sandberg, J. A. C.. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London: Academic Press.
Vogt H, (1954). Language contacts. Word.10 (2-3): 365-374.
Webb, J. (2002).Benefits of Cooperative Learning in Multimedia Environment. Thesis, Department of Workforce Education and Development in the GraduateSchool Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York White, R. & Arndt, V.1991. Process writing. London and New York: Longman.
White, R.V. 1988. Academic writing: Process and product. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Academic Writing: Process and Product, pp. 4-16. Reading: Modern English publications in association with the British Council.
Williams, J. (2003). Preparing to teach writing, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly,16, 195-209.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.