明日寫作平台之實踐：透過「讀促創」與「聊促修」活動提升學生寫作表現、讀者意識及自我效能

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：19

、訪客IP：18.220.81.106

姓名

陳秉成(Bing-cheng Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

明日寫作平台之實踐：透過「讀促創」與「聊促修」活動提升學生寫作表現、讀者意識及自我效能
(The Practice of Tomorrow′s Writing Platform: The Activity of “Reading for Creating” and “Talking for Revising” to Improve Students′ Writing Performance, Audience Awareness, and Self-efficacy)

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]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

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。

摘要(英)

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.

關鍵字(中)

★ 主題文章閱讀
★ 自由寫
★ 讀寫結合
★ 同儕回應

關鍵字(英)

★ theme-based reading
★ free-writing
★ integrated reading-writing
★ peer response

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 3
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究問題 3
1.5 名詞解釋 4
1.6 研究限制 5
1.7 論文架構 5
第二章文獻探討 7
2.1 閱讀與寫作 7
2.2 同儕回應 12
2.3 寫作歷程理論 19
2.4 影響寫作的相關因素 24
第三章活動與系統設計 31
3.1 活動設計 31
3.2 系統設計 35
第四章前導研究 57
4.1 研究對象與環境 57
4.2 研究流程 57
4.3 資料收集與分析 59
4.4 分析結果 60
4.5 討論 64
第五章實驗研究 65
5.1 研究對象 65
5.2 研究設計 65
5.3 研究工具 66
5.4 資料收集 72
5.5 資料分析 75
5.6 研究結果 76
第六章結論與未來展望 95
6.1 結論 95
6.2 研究貢獻 96
6.3 未來展望 97
參考文獻 99
中文文獻 99
英文文獻 101
附錄一、情意問卷 107
附錄二、閱讀與寫作自我覺察問卷 109
附錄三、學生訪談閱讀文章 111
附錄四、學生寫作歷程訪談大綱 115
附錄五、教師訪談大綱 116

參考文獻

中文文獻
王學仁（2013）。設計與評估一套同儕回應系統支援面對面線上同儕回應活動於國小寫作課（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。
朱作仁（1993）。小學作文教學心理學。福建：福建教育。
吳立崗（1993）。小學作文教學。南寧：廣西教育出版社。
吳怡靜（2007）。搶救被忽略的寫作力。天下雜誌，30-34。
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（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。
周慧菁（2007）。美國新一波教育革命，因為寫作真的很重要。82-87。台北：天下雜誌。
林國樑（1988）。語文科教學研究。台北：正中書局。
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（未出版之博士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。
張基成、李煙長（2005）。兒童網路寫作學習社群實施之相關問題探討。教育資料與研究雙月刊，65，96-107。
張新仁（1992）。寫作教學研究：認知心理學取向。高雄：復文。
張新仁（2004）。臺灣地區寫作研究的回顧與展望。課程與教學新論，245-304。臺北市：心理。
張新仁（2008）。看圖作文與創造性主動作文教學法對國小學童早期作文能力之影響。臺南：久洋出版社。
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺北：教育部。
許福吉（2002）。華文創意寫作的教與學--寫作網站《天馬行空》的啟示。新加坡: 聯合早報。
陳鳳如（2008）。國中學生基本學力測驗之寫作測驗表現及其相關因素探究。教育資料與研究，85，58-72。
陳鑫（1986）。國語科教學研究。省立屏東師範學院。
黃美虹（民101年12月28日）。探究國語文讀寫結合之內涵。教師專業發展電子報。取自http://www1.inservice.edu.tw/EPaper/ep2/indexView.aspx?EID=568。
葉靖雲（1999）。以文章寫作和造句測驗評估作文能力之效度研究。特殊教育研究學刊，18，151-172。
蔡志浩（民96年1月11日）。認真寫部落格的孩子不會變壞【部落格文字資料】。取自http://taiwan.chtsai.org/2007/01/11/renzhen_xie_buluoge_de_haizi。
蔡榮昌（1979）。作文教學探究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。
鄭瑞洲、洪振方、黃台珠。（2011）。情境興趣-制式與非正式課程科學學習的交會點。科學教育，340，2-10。
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（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。
藍鈺婷（2012）。我的週刊：以網路經營遊戲支援國小寫作活動（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園縣。

英文文獻
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Beach, R., & Eaton, S. (1984). Factors influencing self-assessing and revising by college freshmen. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds), New Directions in Composition Research, 149-170. New York The Guilford Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of writing composition. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Berkenkotter, C. (1981). Understanding a writer’s awareness of audience. College Composition and Communication, 32, 388-399.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C: The Washington University School of Education and Human Development.
Brande, D. (1934). Becoming a Writer. California, LA:,Tarcher.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the" conversation of mankind". College English, 635-652.
Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-298.
Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 271-282.
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 209-222.

Chaudron, C. (1983). Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision. RECL Journal, 15, 1-14.
Daly, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational Research, 72(1), 10-14.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. London: Oxford University Press.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking-developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Fishman, S. M. (1997). Student writing in philosophy: A sketch of five techniques. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 69, 53-66.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M.J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a Cognitive and Social Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frank, L. A. (1992). Writing to be read: Young writers’ ability to demonstrate audience awareness when evaluated by their readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 277-298.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new model of cognitition and affect in writing. In Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale, NJL: Erlbaum.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295-340.
He, K. K. (2004). New theory of child’s thinking development and in-depth reform of Chinese language education (article written in Chinese). Educational Research, 25, 55–60.
Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255-276.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 , 111-127.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191-209.
Kane, L. (2004). Educators, learners and active learning methodologies. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(3), 275-286.
Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Writing Communication, 6, 296-311.
Kennedy, M. (1985). The composing process of college-students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2(4), 434-456.
Kirsch, G. (1991). Writing up and down the social ladder: a study of experienced writers composing for contrasting audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 33-53.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381-395.
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The Power of Reading:Insights from the research. Westport Conn: Libraries Unlimited.
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CARESOL Journal, 3, 5-17.
Lunsford, K. (2006). Computer-Supported Writing. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition), 809-816.
Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184.
Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 435-451.
McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465-471.
McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quanerly, 27(3), 227-243.
Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21(1), 131-151.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. Johnson & D. Rosen (Eds), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.207-219). White Plains, NY:Longman.
Nelson, N. (2001). Writing to Learn. In Writing as a learning tool (pp. 23-36). Springer Netherlands.
Nystrand, M. (1984). Learning to write by talking about writing: a summary of research on intensive peer review in expository writing instruction at the University of Wis- consin-Madison. Urbana, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED 255 914.
Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interaction model of writing. Written communication, 6(1), 66.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing. The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(3), 313-331.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quaterly, 19, 139-158.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Perl, S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.

Piaget, J. (1970). Extracts from Piaget’s Theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed), Manual of child psychology (pp. 703-732). London: Wiley.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1 992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reynolds, M. (1988). Make Free Writing More Productive. College Composition and Communication, 39(1), 81-82.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1010-1025.
Roth, R. G. (1987). The evolving audience: Alternatives to audience a accommodation. College Composition and Communication, 38, 47-55.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learτling, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299-323.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and discussions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23-52.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337-354.
Somerville, E. M., & Crème, P. (2005). Asking Pompeii questions: a co-operative approach to writing in the disciplines. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 17-28.
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, Unravelling Peer Assessment, 20(4), 291-303.
Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P.D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60, 568-580.

Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-304.
Urzua, C. (1987). “You stopped too soon”: second language children composing and revising. TESOL quarterly, 21(2), 279-304.
Vanett, L., & D. Jurich. (1990). A context for collaboration: Teachers and students writing together. In: Peyton, J. (Ed.). Students and teachers writing together: Perspectives on journal writing. Alexandria: TESOL, 49-62.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
Vygostky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachholz, P. B., & Etheridge, C. P. (1996). Writing self-efficacy beliefs of high and low apprehensive writers. Journal of Developmental Education, 19, 16724.
Walter, A. (2006). Happy poems: Children’s awareness of audience. Language Arts, 83(6), 523-529.
Wang, J. H., Hsu, S. H., Lao, C. C., & Chan, T. W. (2011). A Computer Supported Peer Response Approach for Elementary Student Writing. In Hirashima, T., Biswas, G., Supnithi, T., & Yu, F. Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 738-742). Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Warden, C., & Chen, J. (1998). Improving feedback while decreasing teacher burden in R.O.C. ESL business English writing classes. Paper presented at Explorations in English for Professional Communication, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, June, 1998.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. E. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
Zainuddin, H., & Moore, R. A. (2003). Bilingual writers’ awareness of audience in L1 and L2 persuasive writing. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/ericcll

指導教授

陳德懷(Tak-wai Chan)

審核日期

2014-8-22

推文