社群媒體中結構化知識活動對英文為外語學生預寫成效之研究

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：91

、訪客IP：3.145.100.179

姓名

呂芳鎮(Fang-Chen Lu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

社群媒體中結構化知識活動對英文為外語學生預寫成效之研究
(Social Media Mediated Structured Knowledge Activity on EFL Prewriting Effects Study)

相關論文

★ 認知風格與先備知識於預測、模擬、觀察、解釋科學探究活動之影響	★ 雲端概念構圖結合小組互動於國小六年級自然科學習成效之研究
★ A synthesis of data-driven pattern analysis on co-construction concept map activity and social learning network	★ TIMSS 2015臺灣資料中學生變項與數學成就之關聯：學習分析取向
★ 以行動者網絡理論探究座落於國小的列聯表	★ 多媒體階層圖於商用英文寫作之成效研究
★ 實施課前結構階層圖對於國中生寫作活動成效之研究	★ 學生對於線上概念構圖融入國文科教學的觀點
★ 同儕互教對國中生數學學習成效之影響：準備、講解、互動三階段分析	★ 幼兒數概念體驗的遊戲化學習環境設計
★ 一行禪師正念教育思想之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

社群媒體的互動性有利於以英文為外語的學習，然而學生需要精心設計的教學法來追求更深度學習。本研究目的為探討社群媒體中結構化知識活動對英文為外語學生預寫成效之影響。本研究進一步探討採用結構化概念圖來呈現個人知識包括大意層面、詞彙層面(即為同義詞與反義詞)至網路社群詞彙層面。為此，本研究目的為在社群媒體上設計一個以電腦輔助概念圖之英文預寫活動對各向度的英文寫作能力評量之研究。預寫教學活動設計涵蓋結構化個人知識、外顯知識可供性、整合社群活動。藉由學生在寫作測驗成績表現來評估英文預寫活動之成效。參與此研究為八十位程度相當的高中生，並隨機分為兩組：實驗組與對照組。藉由學生在寫作測驗成績表現上以及其對於預寫活動之看法進行量化分析。本研究結果如下: (一) 兩組學生之寫作成品在文意表達、寫作準確度與流暢度這三面向有統計上之顯著差異。研究結果指出，預寫活動能激勵學習者在網路寫作學習社群主動積極協作回饋，進一步對真實語境下目標詞彙正確性與流暢度的使用有助益。(二)問卷統計與類似研究一致性地發現預寫活動對學生在文意表達與社群協同寫作等兩面向有幫助。前述兩面向與學習者生活經驗有關，並可增進同儕社群互動，因而能夠促進學生的寫作表現。

摘要(英)

Social media interaction can benefit English as a foreign language (EFL) learning, but learners need a deliberate approach to pursue deeper learning. The purpose of this study was to explore social media mediated structured knowledge activity on EFL prewriting effects. The study further looked into adopting a structured concept map to represent private knowledge in three layers including the main idea, the lexical layer (namely synonyms or antonyms), and the online social-lexical layer. To this end, the aim of this study was to design a prewriting activity on social media using a computer-based concept map to assess participants’ writing performance in different aspects of writing. The designed prewriting activity comprised structuralized private knowledge, explicit knowledge affordance, and consolidated social activities. To evaluate the effects of the prewriting activity, an EFL prewriting experiment was conducted. In this experiment, 80 participants in a high school in Taiwan were evenly assigned to a control or experimental group. The participants’ writing essays and learning perceptions were collected, and the analysis results indicated that (1) a significant difference was found in the aspects of communicative quality, linguistic accuracy, and linguistic appropriacy. The results confirmed that the prewriting activity could encourage EFL learners actively and collaboratively to give online feedback in a writing community further conducive to use target words accurately and appropriately in an authentic context. (2) The questionnaire statistics aligned with similar findings that the prewriting activity helped learners’ writing from communicative quality and social collaboration perspectives. The aforementioned perspectives having to do with students’ life experiences as well as improving their social interaction with peers might be able to foster the students’ writing performance.

關鍵字(中)

★ 電腦輔助語言學習
★ 社群媒體
★ 預寫活動
★ 外語預寫

關鍵字(英)

★ computer-assisted language learning
★ social media
★ prewriting activity
★ EFL prewriting

論文目次

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Research Motivation 2

1.3. Purposes of this Research 3

1.4. Research Questions 4

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1. Traditional Prewriting Strategy 6

2.2. Structured Prewriting Strategy 7

2.3. Theories Underlying Lexical Concept Map Architecture 9

2.4. Social Interaction via Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) 11

2.5. Rubrics for the Writing Assessment 13

2.6. Analytic Scoring for English as a Foreign (EFL) Writing 20

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 24

3.1. Social Media Facilitated English Prewriting Activity Design 25

3.2. Experimental Design 36

3.3. Procedure and Instruments 37

3.4. Participants 39

3.5. Essay Raters 39

3.6. Assessments 40

3.7. Data Collection 43

3.8. Data Analysis 44

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46

4.1. Results of Prewriting Activity Effect 46

4.2. Discussion of Prewriting Activity Effect 49

4.3. Results of Perceptions Effect 51

4.4. Discussion of Perceptions Effect 53

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 54

5.1. Conclusion 54

5.2. Implications 55

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Studies 56

REFERENCES 58
APPENDICES 63

Appendix A: Sample Essay One: Describe a One-day Trip 63

Appendix B: Sample Essay Two: Describe a One-day Trip 64

Appendix C: Sample Essay One: Describe a Small Town 65

Appendix D: Sample Essay Two: Describe a Small Town 66

Appendix E: Questionnaire 67

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Types of rating scales used for the assessment of writing 14

Table 2 Primary trait scoring guide 15

Table 3 TOEFL writing scoring guide 19

Table 4 Scoring profile 22

Table 5 Hamp-Lyons and Henning’ s (1991) writing rubric 41

Table 6 Writing scoring rubric 45

Table 7 Overall score results of essay one 47

Table 8 Analytic score results of essay one 48

Table 9 Overall score results of essay two 49

Table 10 Analytic score results of essay two 49

Table 11 Participants’ perceptions about the prewriting activity to enhance EFL writing questionnaire statistics 52

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Structure of literature review 5

Figure 2 RPG_ESP framework 8

Figure 3 An overview of research design and methodology 24

Figure 4 Three-step prewriting activity 25

Figure 5 Online concept map platform: CoCoing.info 28

Figure 6 Concept sharing at CoCoing.info platform 31

Figure 7 Consolidated social activities mediated by CoCoing.info platform 34

Figure 8 Experimental flow 38

Figure 9 The steps of data collection 43

參考文獻

Atkins, J., Banteyirga, H., & Mohammed, N. (1996). Skills development methodology (part 2). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University Press.

Bialystock, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Chang, B., & Lu, F. C. (2018). Social media facilitated English prewriting activity design and evaluation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(1), 33-42.

Chang, B., Shih, Y. A., & Lu, F. C. (in press). Co-construction concept through cloud-based social network platform design, implementation, and evaluation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning.

Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314-332). New York: Routledge.

Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453-464.

Felix, U. (1998). Virtual language learning: Potential and practice. ReCALL, 10(1), 53-58.

Felix, U. (2002). The web as vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching. ReCALL, 14(1), 2-15.

Fernandez-Garcia, M., & Arbelaiz, A. M. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 14(1), 113-136.

Gale, K. (2003). Creative pedagogies of resistance in post compulsory teacher education. In J. Satterthwaite, E. Atkinson, & K. Gale (Eds.), Discourse, power resistance: Challenging the rhetoric of contemporary education (pp. 165-174). Stoke, UK: Trentham Books.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Basic concepts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Eds.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 5-15). Norwood: Ablex.

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Henning, G. (1991). Communicative writing profiles: An investigation of the transferability of a multiple-trait scoring instrument across ESL writing assessment contexts. Language Learning, 41(3), 337-373.

Hanf, M. P. (1971). Mapping: A technique for translating reading into thinking. Journal of Reading, 14(4), 225-230.

Harley, B., Howard, J., & Roberge, B. (1996). Teaching vocabulary: An exploratory study of direct techniques. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 281-304.

Herring, S. C. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Huot, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47(4), 549-566.

Jacob, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Johnson, D., & Steele, V. (1996). So many words, so little time: Helping college EFL learners acquire vocabulary building strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(5), 348-357.

Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). English for specific purposes: Learners’ preferences and attitudes. Journal of Language and Learning, 1(1), 1-9.

Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of pre-writing strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 327-342.

Kinchin, I., & Hay, D. (2005). Using concept maps to optimize the composition of collaborative student groups: A pilot study. Journal of Advance Nursing, 51(2), 182-187.

Kraut, R. E., & Streeter, L. A. (1995). Coordination in software development. Communication of the ACM, 38(3), 69-81.

Lloyd-Jones, R. (1997). Primary trait scoring. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 33-69). NY: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lu, F. C., & Chang, B. (2016). Role-play game-enhanced English for a specific-purpose vocabulary-acquisition framework. Educational Technology and Society, 19(2), 367-377.

Marbach-Ad, G., Seal, O., & Sokolove, P. (2001). Student attitudes and recommendations on active learning: A student-led survey gauging course effectiveness. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(7), 434-438.

Markham, L. R. (1976). Influence of handwriting quality on teacher evaluation of written work. American Educational Research Journal, 13(4), 277-283.

Morin, R., & Goebel, J. J. (2001). Basic vocabulary instruction: Teaching strategies or teaching words? Foreign Language Annals, 34(1), 8-17.

Murdock, J. L., & Williams, A. M. (2011). Creating an online learning community: Is it possible? Innovative Higher Education, 36(5), 305-315.

Mussen, P. (Ed.). (1983). Handbook of child psychology. New York: Willey.

Nattinger, J. (1980). A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14(3), 337-344.

Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese EFL writers. System, 34(4), 566-585.

Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32.

Polat, N., Mancilla, R., & Mahalingappa, L. (2013). Anonymity and motivation in asynchronous discussions and L2 vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology, 17(2), 57-74.

Polio, C. (1998). ESL writing assessment prompts: How students choose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 35-49.

Prensky, M. (2005). In digital games for education, complexity matters. Educational Technology, 45(4), 22-28.

Riva, G., & Galimberti, C (1997). The psychology of cyberspace : A sociocognitive framework to computer mediated communication. New Idea in Psychology, 15(2), 141-158.

Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.

Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1987). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7-26.

Stahl, G. (2010). Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 23-44). New York: Springer.

Sturm, J., & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 124-139.

Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115-132.

Talebinezhad, M. R., & Negari, G. M. (2007). The effect of explicit teaching of concept mapping in expository writing on EFL students’ self-regulation. Linguistic Journal, 2(1), 69-89.

Terry, R. M. (1989). Teaching and evaluating writing as a communicative skill. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 43-54.

Thorne, S. L., Black, R., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online games. Modern Language Journal, 93(5), 802-821.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wainfan, L., & Davis, P. K. (2004). Challenges in virtual collaboration: Videoconferencing, audioconferencing, and computer-mediated communications. Santa Monica, CA: Rand National Defense Research Institute.

Wang, Y. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18(1), 122-145.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143-157.

Weigle, S. C. (2005). Assessing writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., & Diaz., I. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3), 1-43.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Culture, communication and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

White, E. M. (1984). Holisticism. College Composition and Communication, 35(4), 400-409.

Wood, D., & O’Malley, C. (1996). Collaborative learning between peers: An overview. Educational Psychology in Practice, 11(4), 4-9.

Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 115-132.

Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2002). Electronic mail usage pattern of emergent leaders in distributed teams. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organization, 2(3), 140-159.

Yuksel, D., & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333-354.

指導教授

張立杰

審核日期

2018-4-24

推文