博碩士論文 92127006 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:9 、訪客IP:35.173.48.53
姓名 梁淑婷(Shu-Ting Liang)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 學習與教學研究所
論文名稱 線上同儕互評對國小六年級學童寫作學習成效影響之實驗研究
相關論文
★ 在亞卓市教案編輯系統中設計學校本位教案發展之模組★ 以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現 ~以行動學習輔具教室為例
★ 以言談分析方法解析鷹架輔助之線上即時互動★ 『教學決策參照架構』對教師應用無線科技進行數學教學成效影響之實驗研究
★ 高中生「相關」迷思概念診斷工具之發展歷程研究★ 以模擬為基礎的統計學習軟體之初探性評估研究
★ 模擬輔助理解系統對高中生統計「相關」概念學習成效之實驗研究★ 認知風格對模擬為基礎之電腦輔助學習的影響
★ 認知風格對學習者於互動多媒體輔助統計學習之影響-以圖像型與文字型為例★ Exploring Computer-based Nature Science Instruction Based on the Cognitive Load Theory: Spatial Contiguity Effect, and Effects of Prior Knowledge on Performance Assessments
★ 使用電腦字典輔助英文閱讀之認知負荷、認知歷程與非刻意字彙習得★ 行動學習環境中「表徵形式」與「線索有無」對學習者學習行為、認知負荷與學習成效之影響
★ 認知負荷理論的應用與省思:優化電腦模擬輔助學習之介面設計與認知支持的系列研究★ 虛擬教室結合頭戴式顯示器之注意力偵測設計及準確度分析與研究
★ 電腦模擬輔助學習中「人機互動」對認知負荷、學習歷程與學習成效的影響★ 影響中小學教師行動科技融入教學之因素模式探討
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]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 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。
  3. 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) 本研究的目的在瞭解線上同儕互評對國小六年級學童寫作學習的影響。首先,本研究建構一個可促進學習者有意義寫作的線上互評寫作平台「讀來讀往寫作天地」,讓學習者在進行書寫編輯、評量、修稿與繳交作品的各個活動更為方便、順利。其後,進一步於實際的教室情境中,探究在該平台上進行的寫作活動對於小六學童寫作能力與寫作態度的影響以及學童對寫作課程的評價,更針對學童在互評歷程中的評鑑表現加以剖析,以理解線上互評機制是如何影響學童寫作學習。
本研究以台北市某國民小學六年級一個班級為研究對象(共31人),採前實驗設計中的單組前後測設計。班級學童於實驗處理期間進行5 次的寫作活動,每一寫作活動長達兩週(每週兩節課,每節課40分鐘),學童採四人一組的異質分組形式於「讀來讀往寫作天地」上進行與寫作學習相關之活動,每一次寫作活動中學童皆會產出一篇成品。
經過為期十週的線上互評寫作後,歸納量化與質性的研究資料發現:(1) 在寫作能力方面,學童在說明文的「立意取材」、「結構組織」、「遣詞造句」以及「整體分數」的寫作表現顯著進步 (2) 在寫作態度方面,學童在寫作態度問卷「挑戰性」向度上的分數顯著提升 (3) 在評鑑表現方面,學童多給予指正性的評分意見,且多針對「錯別字與標點符號」的文本問題給予評語,而隨著互評次數的增加,學童表達評語的方式更為具體,此外,評語的文字陳述普遍來說多表達清楚無誤 (4) 在課程滿意度方面,學童在課程回饋問卷的填答結果顯示學童「對寫作課程的看法」、「對線上學習活動的觀感」以及「對讀來讀往寫作天地介面設計的意見」皆給予正面的評價 (5) 在教師觀點方面,訪談結果顯示實驗班級教師肯定線上同儕互評對於寫作教學與學生學習的助益。由上述研究結果可知,以學習者為中心並可提供真實讀者回饋的同儕互評,在充分利用線上寫作環境的優勢下,對於小六學童的寫作學習具有正面的促進效果,而教師亦對於此寫作課程的設計與教學成效感到滿意。
摘要(英) The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of online peer assessment upon the sixth-graders’ learning of writing. First of all, an online writing website- Du Lai Du Wang writing field, was set up to promote learners’ meaningful writing, through which the learners can write articles, evaluate peer’s compositions, revise drafts, and hand in writings easily and smoothly. In addition to investigating the practical influence of the writing website on the sixth-graders’ writing skill, writing attitude and evaluation of the curriculum, the pupils’ performances in the assessing process were also analyzed to probe how peer assessment affected the learning of writing.
A one-group pretest-posttest design was implemented in the study, using 31 sixth-graders from certain elementary school in Taipei to engage in the online writing activity. There were five-time online writing activities during the experiment period, and each online writing activity took two weeks (40 minutes per class; two classes per week). The subjects were divided into eight heterogeneous groups and each of them yielded five compositions during the experiment period.
After the ten-week experimental treatment, the integrated results derived from quantitative and qualitative research data were inducted as followings: (1) the students’ writing skills improved dramatically in argumentation, organization, language use and holistic score also improved significantly; (2) the students’ improved attitude toward writing reflected a significant increase in scores on the challenge dimension of the questionnaire; (3) evaluating the results, most of the students’ remarks were corrective, especially on word accuracy and punctuation marks; the expression of remarks became more concrete through the increased practices in peer assessment; further, the expression of remarks were clear and correct in general; (4) in terms of satisfaction with the curriculum, the students highly evaluated the writing curriculum, the online learning activities and the interface design of the website ; (5) the instructor’s perception revealed appreciation of the online peer assessment as a teaching method for writing. According to the aforementioned, it has been demonstrated that the learner-centered peer assessment could provide authentic readers for students. The advantages of an online writing environment supported the students’ learning and the teacher was also satisfied with the curriculum design and teaching effects.
關鍵字(中) ★ 同儕互評
★ 線上寫作
★ 寫作能力
★ 寫作態度
關鍵字(英) ★ online writing
★ writing skill
★ writing attitude
★ peer assessment
論文目次 第一章 緒論 ………….…………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機 …………..……………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的 …………………..……………………………… 4
第三節 研究問題 ………………………………………………….. 4
第四節 名詞解釋 ………………………………………………….. 5
第二章 文獻探討 …………………………….…6
第一節 寫作理論 …………...………………………………….…. 6
第二節 同儕互評 …………………...………………………..…… 14
第三章 研究方法 ……...………………………20
第一節 研究對象 …………………………………………………. 20
第二節 研究設計 …………………………………………………. 23
第三節 研究流程 …………………………………...…………….. 26
第四節 研究工具 …………………………………………………. 28
第五節 資料蒐集與分析 ……...………………………………….. 38
第四章 研究結果與討論 …….………………..45
第一節 研究結果 …..……………...…………………………...…. 45
第二節 綜合討論 …..………………………………….…….……. 74
第五章 結論與建議 …………….………….… 83
第一節 結論 ……...………………………………………….……. 83
第二節 建議 ……...………………………………………..……… 86
參考文獻 …………………………………...…. 89
中文文獻 ………………………………………………….……….. 89
英文文獻 …………………………..……………….………..…….. 89
附錄 ………...……………………………….… 94
附錄一 實驗班級之寫作活動時程安排 …….…………………… 94
附錄二 寫作態度問卷 ………………………………………….… 95
附錄三 課程回饋問卷 ……..……………………………………... 97
附錄四 教室觀察紀錄表 ………………...……………………… 101
附錄五 教師訪談謄稿分析 …………………………….....…….. 102
附錄六 說明文評分標準教學之講授內容 …….……………….. 109
附錄七 寫作歷程中互評指導教材 ……...……………………… 114
參考文獻 【中文部份】
王瑀(2004)。以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現。國立中央大學學習與
教學所碩士論文,未出版,桃園縣。
邱麗綺(2003)。高年級國語科卷宗評量中的師生互動及學生自評與互評之研究。
國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
張新仁(1992)。寫作教學研究-認知心理學取向。高雄:復文。
張春興(2000)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市:東華。
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993/1998).岳修平(譯)。
教學心理學:學習的認知基礎。台北:遠流。
劉子鍵和黃毓翎(2003,12月)。以言談分析方法解析電腦中介溝通之師生即時
互動。載於李藝(主編),第七屆全球華人學習科技研討會暨第十一屆國際電
腦輔助教學研討會(GCCCE2003)論文集(709-715頁)。中國大陸:南京大
學。(NSC 91-2520-S-008-009)
【英文部分】
Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in
learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-34.
Berg, E. 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.
Baker, E. A., Rozendal, M. S., & Whitenack, J. W. (2000). Audience awareness in a
technology-rich elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research : JLR,
32(3), 395-419.
Collier, R., & Werier, C. (1995). When computer writers compose by hand.
Computers and Composition, 12(1), 47-59.
Cooper, M., & Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about protocols. College Composition
and Communication,34(3), 284-93.
Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on student's writing.
American Educational Research Journal, 26 (2), 143-159.
Day, M., & Batson, T. (1995). The network-based writing classroom: The ENFI idea.
In Collins, Marie & Z. Berge (Eds.), Computer Mediated Communication and
the Online Writing Classroom (pp. 25-46). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and
Training International, 37(4), 346-355.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addresses/ audience invoked: The role of
audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and
Communication, 35(2), 155-171.
Flower, L. (1979).Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing.
College English, 41 (1), 19-37.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational
Research, 57(40), 481-506.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and
Communication, 40(3), 282.311.
Fry, S. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 177-189.
Flower, L.(1994). The construction of negotiated meaning : A social cognitive theory
of writing. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment.
Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175-187.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A
meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Education Research,
70(3), 287-322.
Geest, T. V. D., & Remmers, T. (1994). The computer as means of communication
for peer-review groups. Computers and Composition, 11, 237-250.
Haaga, D. A. F. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology course.
Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), 28-32.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Bar-Natan, I. (2002). Writing development of Arab and
Jewish students using cooperative learning (CL) and computer-mediated
communication (CMC). Computers & Education, 39, 19-36.
Katstra, J., Tollefson, N., & Gilbert, E. (1987). The effects of peer evaluation on
attitude toward writing and writing fluency of ninth grade students. Journal of
Educational Research, 80(3), 168-172.
Lumpe, A. T., & Staver, J. R. (1995). Peer collaborative and concept development:
learning about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1),
71-98.
Lee, S. D., Armitage, S., Groves, P., & Stephens, C. (1999). Online Teaching: Tools
& Projects - Computer Mediated Communication (CMC).
Liu, E. Z. -F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C. -H., & Yuan, S. -M. (2001). Web-based peer
review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 44(3), 246-251.
Liu, E. Z. -F., & Yuan, S. -M. (2003). A study of students' attitudes toward and
desired system requirements of networked peer assessment system. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 349-354.
McCord, E. A. (1991). Meeting the reader's needs: Audience response through
reader-focused testing. The Bulletin of the Association for Business
Communication, 39-45.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in
student writing projects. Journal of Education for Business, 70(4), 220-227.
Mowl, G., & Pain, R. (1995). Using self and peer assessment to improve students'
essay writing: A case study from geography. Innovations in Education and
Training International, 32(4), 324-335.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change : a classroom
study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.
Nystrand, M., & Himley, M. (1984). Written text as social interaction. Theory into
Practice, 23(3), 198-207.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies of reciprocity
between writers and readers. London: Academic Press.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Callaghan, A. (2004). Implementation of a formative
assessment model incorporating peer and self-assessment. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 273-290.
Petrosky, A. (1983). Review of Problem Solving Strategiesfor Writing. College
Composition and Communication, 34(2), 233-235.
Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer
assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(4),
314-323.
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for
analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication
environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 41-68.
Redd-Boyd, T. M., & Slater, W. H. (1989). The effects of audience specification on
undergraduates' attitudes, strategies, and writing. Research in the Teaching of
English, 23(1), 77-108.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
Schriver, K. A. (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers' needs. Written
Communication, 9(2), 179-208.
Simkin, M. G., & Ramarapu, N. K. (1997). Student perceptions of the peer review
process in student writing projects. Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication, 27(3), 249-263.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities.
Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer
assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169.
Tsai, C. -C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. -M. (2002). Developing science activities
through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38,
241-252.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience
awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 184-201.
Waes, L. V., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing
mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 829-853.
Zimmerman, B. B. (1998). Linda Flower and social cognition: Constructing a view of
the writing process. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(3), 25-37.
Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review.
International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(4), 311-345.
指導教授 劉子鍵(Tzu-Chien Liu) 審核日期 2006-7-18
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