博碩士論文 109524015 詳細資訊




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:59 、訪客IP:18.204.35.30
姓名 廖紹儒(Shao-Ju Liao)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱 提升式寫作:設計說明文寫作策略之鷹架以逐步提升學生寫作表現
(Betterment-Driven Writing: Designing Scaffolds of Expository Writing Strategies to Progressively Improve Students′ Writing Performance)
相關論文
★ 探索電玩遊戲頻率對於視覺注意力表現能力的效應★ 代理表現學習模式—以動物同伴為例
★ 常用邏輯句型重組之學習★ 電腦支援國小數學文字題擬題活動初探
★ 解釋數學:透過科技支援創作與討論以增強小學生的數學溝通能力★ 提問式鷹架教學結合數位閱讀寫作系統對國小低年級學生語文能力的影響
★ 數學島:興趣驅動之國小數學線上平台設計與初步評估★ 以「猜擬題」活動增進學生數學文字題解題能力
★ 基於學生練習使用回饋之學習成效預測模型與動態題數練習機制★ 透過主題地圖與寵物同伴促進閱讀更深更廣的書籍
★ 具推薦書籍功能之閱讀島系統架構設計★ 透過學生影片創作進行國小數學學習:趣創者理論之應用
★ 英文單字樂園:學生自創字卡搭配複習機制強化英文字彙學習之系統設計及學習成效初探★ 設計與實作明日寫作系統增進國小學生寫作表現
★ 設計與實踐「提升式寫作」活動以提升國小學生寫作品質與寫作興趣★ TTPR:設計科技強化型全肢體反應為了小學生和國中生在印尼學習英語詞彙
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 (2027-8-1以後開放)
摘要(中) 先前「提升式寫作」 (Betterment-Driven Writing, BDW) 的研究,以證實心智圖、名家文章等多項步驟有助於提升寫作品質,但步驟過於繁多導致後續寫作步驟無顯著提升,
並觀察到學生在寫說明文時無從下筆,更進一步發現因為對說明文的不適應於同儕回應的步驟中,學生沒有辦法給予有建設性的建議,原先在同儕回應的步驟中,會以開放性的問題作為提問,應用於較基礎的寫作文體學生是有辦法思考回答,但像是說明文較為複雜的文體,開放性問題使得學生無法聚焦說明文主題的重點。許多研究指出說明文是不易學習的文體,在傳統課堂上教師並不會為其設計寫作教學,故需要提供教學鷹架,因此,本研究延續「提升式寫作」的概念,以說明文寫作為目標設計一個寫作鷹架,又名為「說明文寫作策略」,為了幫助學生在說明文上的寫作改良先前步驟,整理說明文寫作技巧並融入主體閱讀與自由寫及同儕回應中,並修正過去同儕回應過於攏統的問題,希望有助於說明文的寫作表現與興趣。本活動將探討「說明文寫作策略」之鷹架對學生寫作表現及說明文品質的影響,將以通用文體的「提升式寫作」活動的學生(n=14)與「說明文寫作策略」活動的學生(n=22)進行比較,最後透過問卷調查學生經過完整活動後的寫作興趣並討論寫作興趣與說明文寫作表現的關係,還有透過觀察與開放性問卷以瞭解學生對活動的想法。
整理量化和質性的研究資料發現:「說明文寫作策略」活動有助於學生說明文寫作的表現,改良閱讀主題文章對後續寫作活動有顯著提升,補足在心智圖的正確性及概念的理解,和幫助在撰寫草稿時,組織文章的結構和寫作的語法表達。改良的同儕回應也有效提升寫作的品質和幫助學生在同儕回饋的評語品質,但其中發現學生會因專注於發展文章的主題,而忽略在標點符號的正確性及字詞的使用,不過後續完稿會給予學生第二次改正的機會,使學生降低錯詞錯句而使文章品質降低,並透過此活動,學生在對說明寫作的興趣與以往相比雖沒有提升,但在發展成未來興趣及持續寫作是不排斥的,且發現說明文寫作與興趣兩者緊密相關,故若讓學生不排斥說明文寫作,可進而推動學生的寫作興趣。
摘要(英) Previous Betterment-Driven Writing (BDW) research to demonstrate that steps such as mind mapping and second peer feedback help improve writing quality. However, the number of steps was too large, resulting in no significant improvement in the subsequent writing steps. It was also observed that the students were unable to write the expository essay and further found that they were not able to give constructive suggestions in the peer response. Due to their discomfort with the expository essay. Many studies point to that need to provide instructional scaffolding for the fact that expository text is a difficult genre to learn. Therefore, this study continued the concept of " Betterment-Driven Writing " and designed a writing scaffold with the goal of writing in expository text, also known as " Expository Writing Strategies ". In order to organize expository writing skills and integrate them into the reading and free writing and peer response, and correct the problem of worthless response in the past. This activity will investigate the effect of the Scaffolding of Expository Writing Strategies on students′ writing performance and the quality of expository writing. A comparison will be made between students in the" Generic Text Strategies" activity (n=14) and students in the "Expository Writing Strategies" activity (n=22), and finally a questionnaire will be used to survey students′ interest in writing after the full activity and discuss the relationship between interest in writing and expository writing performance.
A review of quantitative and qualitative research data found that the" Expository Writing Strategies" activity contributed to students′ performance in expository writing. Improving the reading of the essays on the topic significantly enhances subsequent writing activities, complements the correctness of mental maps and conceptual understanding, and helps organize the structure and grammatical presentation of the essays when writing drafts.
helped students′ performance in expository writing and students′ quality of peer feedback, and that the activity was closely related to students′ interest in writing. The improved peer feedback was also effective in improving the quality of the writing and the quality of the students′ peer feedback, but it was found that students focused on developing the theme of the essay and neglected the correctness of punctuation and the use of words. Through this activity, students′ interest in expository writing is not higher than before, but they are not excluded from developing future interest and continuing to write, and it is found that expository writing and interest are closely related.
關鍵字(中) ★ 興趣驅動創造者理論
★ 主題閱讀與自由寫
★ 說明文
★ 同儕回應
★ 寫作表現
★ 寫作興趣
關鍵字(英) ★ Interest-Driven Creator Theory
★ theme-based reading and free writing
★ explanatory text
★ peer response
★ writing performance
★ writing interest
論文目次 摘要 I
ABSTRACT III
目錄 V
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 X
第一章、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的與問題 3
1.4 名詞解釋 4
1.4.1 主題閱讀與自由寫 4
1.4.2 同儕互評 4
1.4.3 說明文 5
1.4.4 提升式寫作 5
1.5 論文架構 5
第二章、文獻探討 7
2.1 說明文寫作 7
2.1.1 傳統寫作教學 7
2.1.2 說明文寫作教學 8
2.2 認知鷹架 10
2.2.1 自由寫 10
2.2.2 引導式發現 11
2.2.3 同儕回應 12
2.2.4 電腦輔助寫作 14
2.3 「興趣驅動創造者」理論(INTEREST-DRIVEN CREATOR THEORY) 15
第三章、活動與系統設計 18
3.1 活動設計原則 18
3.2 系統設計與開發 24
3.3 「說明文寫作策略」活動系統流程功能介紹 25
3.3.1 教師端 25
3.3.2 學生端 33
第四章、研究方法與分析 40
4.1 研究對象與環境 40
4.2 研究工具 42
4.2.1 心智圖評分指標 42
4.2.2 說明文寫作創意評分指標 46
4.2.3 引導式問題回答評分指標 50
4.2.4 同儕回應評語品質表 51
4.2.5 寫作興趣問卷設計 52
4.2.6 觀察與開放性問卷調查 54
4.3 研究流程 55
4.4 資料處理與分析 58
4.4.1 資料蒐集與處理 58
4.4.2 資料分析方法 60
第五章、研究結果與討論 63
5.1 說明文寫作表現 63
5.1.1 「說明文寫作策略」心智圖分析結果 63
5.1.2 「說明文寫作策略」說明文寫作分析結果 64
5.2 鷹架問題回答表現 72
5.2.1 「說明文寫作策略」引導式問題分析結果 72
5.2.2 同儕回應內容分析 74
5.3 寫作興趣 79
5.3.1 說明文寫作興趣與通用策略差異比較 80
5.3.2 寫作興趣與說明文寫作表現的相關比較 82
5.4 寫作教學現場觀察 85
第六章 結論與未來展望 89
6.1 結論與討論 89
6.1.1 與通用寫作策略相比,說明文寫作策略對說明文的形成性寫作表現是否有差異? 89
6.1.2 說明文寫作策略與通用寫作策略的鷹架問題回答表現是否有差異? 90
6.1.3 學生的說明文寫作與興趣之間的關係和與通用模式差異為何? 90
6.2 研究限制 91
6.3 未來展望 91
參考文獻 93
中文文獻 93
英文文獻 96
附錄一 100
附錄二 102
參考文獻 中文文獻
王萬儀. (2010). 現代白話文寫作類型研究. 清華大學中國文學系學位論文, 1-552.
柯華葳, & 陳冠銘. (2004). 文章結構標示與閱讀理解-以低年級學生為例. 教育心理學報, 36(2), 185-200.
梁崇輝. (2004). 九年一貫語文領域第二學習階段國語教科書說明文與議論文篇章結構分析研究. 未出版之碩士論文. 國立台中師範學院語文教育學系.
王振漢(2015).整合式同儕回應對學生寫作之影響:遊戲情境與非遊戲情境[未發表之博士論文].國立中央大學資訊工程研究所。
吳宣宏(2009).國小寫作想法產出之大量閱讀與自由寫數位學習活動設計與探討[未發表之碩士論文].國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
李宜蓁(2013).讀報結合心智圖寫作教學對國小四年級寫作能力與態度影響之研究[未發表之碩士論文].國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
朱艷英(1994)。文章寫作學。高雄市:麗文文化公司。
汪慶雲(2005).對國小學生自然領域學習態度與成就影響之研究[未發表之碩士論文].國立高雄師範大學國文學系。
林汶葶(2020).設計與實作明日寫作系統增進國小學生寫作表現[未發表之碩士論文].國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
林政華(1991)。文章寫作與教學。臺北市:富春出版社。
(2021).設計與實作明日寫作系統增進國小學生寫作表現[未發表之碩士論文].國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
林嘉玲(2003).七年級學生健康與體育相關概念之行動研究[未發表之碩士論文].國立體育學院運動科學研究所。
林嘉琪, 黃詩媛, 詹雨臻, & 陳學志(2019).創造思考寫作教學對國中生創造力, 寫作能力之影響.創造學刊,9(2),27-45。
洪月女, & 靳知勤. (2008). 科學寫作理論與教學之探討. 課程與教學, 11(2), 173-191.
柯華葳(2013).閱讀是新世紀必要的學習管道.人文與社會科學簡訊,14(4),4-11。
柯華葳、張郁雯、詹益綾、丘嘉慧(2017).PIRLS 2016 台灣四年級學生閱讀素養國家報告.桃園:國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
孫易新(2014).心智圖法理論與應用.商周出版。
徐仕勳(2014).整合主題閱讀與自由寫之數位寫作環境(何艾模式):從設計到評估 [未發表之碩士論文].國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
莊景益(2007).心智繪圖結合摘要教學法與寫作教學法對國小四年級學生閱讀理解與寫作能力之行動研究[未發表之碩士論文].國立屏東教育大學教育科技研究所。
陳弘昌(1999).國小語文科教學研究.五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
陳柏熹(2011).心理與教育測驗: 測驗編製理論與實務.精策教育。
陳鳳如(1999).閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式驗證及其教學效果之研究[未發表之博士論文].國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
陳海泓(2011)。說明文體的閱讀理解教學。教師天地,172,28-36。
陳鳳如(2017).平衡歷程與成果取向之寫作教學的理念與應用.教育研究月刊,(279),15-32。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602017070279002
黃一泓, & 王貞雯(2011).以心智圖做為筆記工具對國小五年級學生在數學科的學習成效之研究. 教育科學期刊,10(2),91-114。https://doi.org/10.6388/JES.201112.0091
賀志堅(1993)。寫作辭典:描述篇。臺北:泉源出版社。
廖長彥, 陳秉成, 張菀真, & 陳德懷(2017).透過同儕回應寫作環境培養國小學生的讀者意識.數位學習科技期刊, 9(4),25-51。 https://doi.org/10.3966/2071260X2017100904002
劉中琪, 廖長彥, & 陳德懷(2013).我的寵物打字: 心流式打字遊戲的設計與評估.數位學習科技期刊,5(2),27-44。https://doi.org/10.3966/2071260X2013040502002
蔡青橋(2016).國小高年級學生寫作表現與寫作創意相關指標之研究.資優教育季刊,(139),23-33。https://doi.org/10.6218/GEQ.2016.139.23-33
錢昭君, & 張世彗(2010).心智圖法寫作教學方案對國小學生創造力及寫作表現之影響.特殊教育學報,(32),79-99。https://doi.org/10.6768/JSE.201012.0079
謝易泰(2013).設計與實踐同儕「聊作品」活動以提升低年級學生塗鴉寫作能力 [未發表之碩士論文].國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
魏靜雯(2004).心智繪圖與摘要教學對國小五年級學生閱讀理解與摘要能力之影響[未發表之碩士論文].國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
羅吉希(2020). 6+ 1 寫作指標對素養導向寫作評量的啟示與省思.台灣教育評論月刊,9(6),76-81。
羅秋昭(2009).國小語文科教材教法.台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
王萬儀. (2010). 現代白話文寫作類型研究. 清華大學中國文學系學位論文, 1-552.
柯華葳, & 陳冠銘. (2004). 文章結構標示與閱讀理解-以低年級學生為例. 教育心理學報, 36(2), 185-200.
梁崇輝. (2004). 九年一貫語文領域第二學習階段國語教科書說明文與議論文篇章結構 分析研究. 未出版之碩士論文. 國立臺中師範學院語文教育學系, 臺中.
陳秋梅. (2014). 寫作檢核表: 同儕互評與自評在英語段落寫作教學中之施行. SPECTRUM: NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, 12(1), 1-16.
國家教育研究院(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要之語文領域─國語文。臺北:國教院。
國家教育研究院(2019)。十二年國民基本教育領域課程綱要(國民中小學、普 通型高中)研修工作手冊。臺北:國教院。
劉宸穎(2021).設計與實踐 [提升式寫作] 活動以提升國小學生寫作品質與寫作興趣[未發表之碩士論文].國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所。
















英文文獻
Brande, D. (1934). Becoming a Writer. Tarcher.
Byrne, D. (1993). Teaching writing skills. London: Longman
Ayu, C., Mudjiran, M., & Refnaldi, R. (2022). Developing a guided discovery model based on reflective teaching to improve students′ short essay writing skills. Linguistics and Culture Review, 6, 422-433.
Berninger, V. W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 193-218.
Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., & Bragg, R. (1991). Scientific practitioner: Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of school psychology, 29(1), 57-79.
Birjandi, P., & Malmir, A. (2011). The effect of task-based approach on the Iranian advanced EFL learners’ narrative vs. expository writing. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 1-26.
Brewer, W. F., & Lichtenstein, E. H. (1980). Event schemas, story schemas, and story grammars. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 197.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80-98.
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.
Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448.
Cooper, M. M., & Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52(8), 847-869.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading research quarterly, 35(2), 202-224.
Edwards, J. H., & Liu, J. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms: University of Michigan Press.
Elbow, P. (1989). Toward a phenomenology of freewriting. Journal of Basic Writing, 8(2), 42-71.
Fitzhugh, W. (2006). Where’s the content? Educational Leadership, 64(2), 42-47.
Foorman, B., & Schatschneider, C. (2003). Measurement of teaching practices during reading/language arts instruction and its relationship to student achievement. Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning, 1-30.
Fry, S. W., & Gosky, R. (2007). Supporting social studies reading comprehension with an electronic pop-up dictionary. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 127-139.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British educational research journal, 36(1), 143-162.
Graesser, A. C., & Otero, J. (2002). 1. Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1-18).
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407.
Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2013). Narrative and expository writing of adolescents with language-learning disabilities: A pilot study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34(3), 135-143.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction: University of Michigan Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968.
Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide (Vol. 6): John Wiley & Sons.
Kellogg, R. T. (1999). The psychology of writing: Oxford University Press.
Lan, Y.-C., Lo, Y.-L., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2014). The effects of meta-cognitive instruction on students′ reading comprehension in computerized reading contexts: A quantitative meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 186-202.
Lannon, J. M. (2004). The writing process: A concise rhetoric, reader, and handbook: Pearson Longman.
Lijnse, P. (2004). Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching–learning sequences? International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 537-554.
Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response: Conversations of high-and low-apprehensive writers. Written Communication, 8(4), 509-532.
Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2010.493470
Martlew, M., & Sorsby, A. (1995). The precursors of writing: Graphic representation in preschool children. Learning and instruction, 5(1), 1-19.
Mastan, M. E., & Maarof, N. (2014). ESL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and strategy use in expository writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2360-2363.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading research quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
Mustika, M., Cheng, H. N., & Chan, T.-W. (2021). Mindmap-Supported Writing Model: The Effect of Mind map as a Prewriting Activities on Elementary Students’ Writing Performances through Private Social Network Learning Sites. Paper presented at the 2021 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT).
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.
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375-401.
Nielsen, K. (2014). Self‐assessment methods in writing instruction: A conceptual framework, successful practices and essential strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 1-16.
Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 384-403.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45-65.
Olson, C. B., Scarcella, R., & Matuchniak, T. (2015). English learners, writing, and the common core. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 570-592.
Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. (2013). The psychology and pedagogy of reading processes. Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology, 7, 507-554.
Piccolo, J. A. (1987). Expository text structure: Teaching and learning strategies. The Reading Teacher, 40(9), 838-847.
Reiser, B. J. (2018). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. In The Journal of the Learning sciences (pp. 273-304): Psychology Press.
Richards, J. C. (2002). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: A personal reflection. RELC journal, 33(2), 1-35.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics: Routledge.
Schriver, K. A. (1990). Document Design from 1980 to 1990.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard educational review, 78(1), 40-59.
Tanjung, F., & Yandri, Y. (2014). An Analysis of The First Year Students’ Difficulties In Writing Simple Sentence In Simple Past Tense At Sma Adabiah Padang. Jurnal Fakultas Keguruan Dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 3(6), 88-95.
Tompkins, G. E. (2012). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning: Routledge.
Weaver, J. A. (2010). Text Structure Knowledge of Pre-Service Teachers.
Writing, N. C. o. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work… or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. In: College Entrance Examination Board New York, NY.
Yoshimura, F. (2009). Effects of connecting reading and writing and a checklist to guide the reading process on EFL learners’ learning about English writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1871-1883.
指導教授 陳德懷(Tak-Wai Chan) 審核日期 2022-8-24
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明