過去研究發現國小學生在寫作時常常會遭遇到困難，包括書寫時缺乏想法、寫作阻塞及不知如何修改文章等問題。為了克服學生的寫作困難，本研究奠基於先前研究成果，即透過主題文章閱讀與自由寫方式，促進學生寫作，產生文章初稿，稱為「讀促創」；透過同儕回應的方式，促進學生間給予意見，進而修改自己的文章，稱為「聊促修」。因此，本研究設計並整合「讀促創」與「聊促修」活動，發展「明日寫作」平台並實踐於小學現場，以期提昇學生的寫作表現，並且觀察學生在讀者意識與寫作自我效能的變化。本研究分兩階段進行。第一階段為前導研究，首先導入「讀促創」活動，由8名四年級教師帶領8個班共計218名學生進行，分析學生寫作想法產出與寫作表現之間的關係；第二階段為準實驗研究，自8個班挑選其中4個班參與，隨機分派至同儕回應組 (n=53) 與個人寫作組 (n=57)，共計110名學生。同儕回應組學生進行「讀促創」與「聊促修」的寫作活動，而個人寫作組學生則是進行「讀促創」與「自我修改」活動，並且比較兩組學生於寫作表現與情意面向的差異。研究結果發現：「讀促創」活動可以幫助兩組的學生連結個人經驗與知識，引導其思考與想像，進而產出更多寫作想法並表達，且能提升其語意層次（相異詞彙量）的寫作表現；而「聊促修」活動可以幫助學生在語法層次（寫作字數、寫作句數）上有較高的寫作表現，並且在情意面向方面，學生也有較高的自我效能與讀者意識，然而兩組學生在寫作興趣面向沒有顯著差異。;Previous studies found primary school students often had writing difficulty, such as lacking of writing ideas, writing blocks, and difficulties of revising. This study integrated previous studies to design a “Tomorrow’s Writing” platform based on “reading for creating” and “talking for revising” activities to enhance their writing performance and affective . “Reading for creating” activity could stimulate students to generate a draft by theme-based reading and free-writing. “Talking for revising” could promote students to revise their drafts by peer responses. This study was conducted into two phases. The first phase is a pilot study and focused on “reading for creating.” The participants were 8 fourth grader classes with 8 teachers and 218 students. The purpose of this pilot study is to know the relationship between ideas generating and writing performance. The second phase is a qui-experiment. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of “talking for revising.” The participants were four classes students selected from the previous 8 classes and random assigned to peer response group (n = 53) and independent writing group (n = 57). The main difference of these two groups is revising activity, “talking for revising” and “self-revising.” The results indicated that “reading for creating” activity could help students activate their prior experiences and knowledge, so that students can generate more ideas and enhance their syntactic level of writing performance (increasing total number of type token). In contrast, “talking for revising” activity could enhance peer response group students semantic level of writing performance (increasing total number of Chinese characters and total number of sentences), and they had higher writing self-efficiency and audience awareness. However, these is no difference between these two groups on writing interesting.
