國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	李偉綾 Wei-ling Li
論文名稱：	部落格同儕互評對台灣高職生之英文寫作能力與學習態度之效益研究 The Effects of Integrating Blogging into Peer Feedback Revision on English Writing Perfromance and Attitude of Vocational High School Students in Taiwan
指導教授：	周中天 Chou, Chung-Tien
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2009
畢業學年度：	98
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	173
中文關鍵詞：	部落格、同儕互評、英文寫作、寫作能力、寫作態度、高職生
英文關鍵詞：	blog, peer feedback, English writing, writing performance, writing attitude, vocational high school students
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：419 下載：20
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

Blog是近年來新興的個人交流、知識管理、和網路發表意見的工具，且逐漸被應用於教育和語言學習上。本研究旨在探討應用Blog進行英文寫作結合同儕互評對於高職生英文寫作能力與寫作態度之影響。研究時間為5個月，參與對象為台中市某高職二年級的兩班學生。兩班分別為Blog寫作組(實驗組)和傳統紙筆寫作組(對照組)，共44位學生。Blog寫作組 ( 20人 )和傳統紙筆寫作組 ( 24人 )在20次作文課中在寫作前測和後測之間，寫了3篇英文作文。 Blog寫作組3篇文章皆發表在blog上，同儕互評給予意見，加以修改後，再由老師給意見,做第二次修改後才由老師評分。而傳統紙筆寫作組則是每篇文章寫在紙上，老師給意見，加以修改後由老師評分。所有參與活動的學生在活動前後各撰寫一篇英文作文作為前後測。為了更客觀的評量學生作文能力的進步情形，此研究用the grammar checker program (http://140.122.83.189:8080/wgrammar/default.asp)以及the Vocabprofiler (http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/) 兩軟體來研究學生的句子平均長度全文長度、type-token ratio、及lexical density，以了解學生寫作內容和用字差異; 並且用前後測文中T-Unit數、每句T-Unit長度來比較兩組學生文法結構的複雜度進步情形。在寫作態度方面，作文前測時兩組同時填寫一份寫作態度量表；寫作文後測時，再填寫同樣的寫作態度量表。Blog寫作組則另外寫一份Blog評量問卷以了解實驗組對此活動的看法與建議。本研究採用單因子共變數分析 (ANCOVA) 及單一樣本T考驗 (One sample T-test) 探討蒐集的資料。

本研究之重要研究發現如下：
1.Blog 寫作互評組比起傳統紙筆寫作組在全文長度、Type-token ratio、lexical density及T-Units數上較有進步, 但並無顯著差異。
2.英文學習態度的問卷分析顯示，Blog寫作互評組的學生較傳統紙筆寫作組的學生對英文學習興趣較高，較能減輕焦慮，也更肯定寫作的有效性，但兩組學習態度統計結果皆無顯著差異。
3.Blog寫作互評組對於Blog寫作及Blog同儕評改持肯定態度。多數認為寫作結合Blog和同儕互評有益於英文寫作也認為創新有趣，不過仍有一些建議。
例如，獎勵制度和公開示範好的同儕互評意見及部落格，可以作為讓學生更用心的誘因。而更嚴謹設計的規範、老師更多的介入、及更多上課時間用於訓練同儕互評寫作修改等等，都是不可或缺的。而且每小組只有2~3人對增加意見和回饋似乎略嫌少了些。

最後研究者根據研究結果，針對blog結合同儕寫作及英文寫作教學提供建議與看法。

ABSTRACT
Blogs have been used as a convenient tool for personal interaction, knowledge management, and expression of online opinions with wide popularity in recent years, and they are increasingly being applied to education and language learning. The current study investigated the effectiveness of blog-integrated peer feedback revision on the writing performance and attitude of vocational high school students in Taiwan. The duration of the experiment lasted for approximately five months, and the participants were students of two classes in a vocational high school in Taichung City. The participants were divided into two groups: one class was the experimental group (the blog-integrated group) and the other was the control group (the traditional paper-and-pen writing group), with a total of 44 students. The experimental group (the blog-integrated group) consisted of 20 students while the control group (the traditional paper-and pen writing group) was composed of 24 students. Both groups wrote three in-class essays besides the writing pre-test and writing post-test in the 20-week composition courses. The experimental group (the blog-integrated group) wrote all the three essays, gave peer feedback, and revised their first draft on the blogs. After the revision, they handed in their second draft for teacher feedback. The third draft, revised according to teacher feedback, was scored by the teacher afterwards. However, the control group wrote essays on paper for teacher feedback. Their revised second drafts were graded by the teacher. Every participant in the present study wrote one writing pre-test and post-test. To assess students’ improvement in writing performance more objectively, the researcher adopted the grammar checker program (http://140.122.83.189:8080/ wgrammar/ default.asp ) and the Vocabprofiler system (http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/) to examine students’ text length (i.e. content length & sentence length) and lexical richness (i.e. type-token ratio and lexical density) to have a better understanding of variances in writing content and diction. Moreover, the syntactic complexity, including T-Units and T-Unit length, were also examined to gain more insight into participants’ improvement in grammar structure. With regard to their writing attitude, both groups responded to the writing attitude questionnaire simultaneously when taking the writing pre-test, and took the same questionnaire in the writing post-test. The blog-integrated group filled out another blog-evaluation questionnaire to elicit students’ perceptions and recommendations with regard to the experimental design. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and one sample T-test were employed in the study for data analysis.
The major findings in the current study were summarized as follows:
1. There were no significant differences in their overall writing performance between the experimental group and the traditional group. However, the experimental group made slightly more progress in terms of content length, type-token ratio, lexical density, and T-Units, although this was not statistically significant.
2. There were no significant differences in the writing attitudes between the two groups. Further comparison revealed that students in the experimental group showed greater interest and motivation, felt less anxious and had an increased realization of the usefulness of English writing.
3. The experimental group generally held a positive attitude toward writing on blogs, and blog-integrated peer feedback. The great majority of students perceived that the combination of blogs and peer feedback as beneficial to their English writing and agreed with the novelty and attraction of the design. Nevertheless, they also offered some practical suggestions. For example, the reward system or modeling of quality peer feedback and good blogs were recommended to be adopted as incentives to encourage students to devote themselves to the design. They also suggested that more rigidly structured guidelines, more intervention from teachers, and more class time in training, writing, and revision. Further, one or two members in a group may not be enough to provide diverse perspectives.

Finally, the researcher provides practical pedagogical implications and suggestions concerning blog-integrated peer feedback and English writing instruction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT(Chinese)    i
ABSTRACT    ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS    iv
LIST OF TABLES    ix
LIST OF FIGURES    xii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION    1
1.1 Motivation and background    1
1.2 Purpose of the study    6
1.3 Research questions    7
1.4 Significance of the study    7
1.5 Definition of the terms    8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW    13
2.1 Writing instruction and writing process    13
2.1.1 Writing instruction    13
2.1.2 Writing process    15
2.2 Writing assessment and writing performance    16
2.3 Peer feedback    20
2.3.1 Advantages of peer feedback    21
2.3.2 Disadvantages of peer feedback    24
2.3.3 Suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of peer feedback    26
2.4 Web-based learning    27
2.4.1 Definitions of web-based learning    27
2.4.2 Functions and advantages of web-based learning    28
2.4.3 Limitations of Web-based learning    31
2.4.4 Advantages and disadvantages of web-based peer feedback    31
2.4.5 Studies on web-based peer feedback    33
2.5 Weblogs    34
2.5.1 Definition    34
2.5.2 The history of blogs    36
2.5.3 Characteristics and the potential of blogs    38
2.5.4 The basic concept and rationale for using blogs in education:    41
2.5.5 The application of blogs in education    43
2.5.6 Advantages of blogs in the writing class    46
2.5.7 Disadvantages of blogs    51
2.6 Summary    52
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY    55
3.1 Research design    55
3.2 Participants    57
3.3 The setting    59
3.4 Instruments    59
3.4.1. The writing attitude questionnaire    60
3.4.2 The blog-evaluation questionnaire    60
3.4.3. Peer feedback checklist    61
3.5 Writing instruction and writing practices    62
3.5.1. Stage 1: Orientation    62
3.5.2. Stage 2: The same writing instructions for the two groups    64
3.5.3. Stage 3: Different writing and revising practices for the two groups    65
3.6 Data analysis    70
3.6.1 A quantitative analysis    70
3.6.1.1 Text length    71
3.6.1.2. Lexical richness    72
3.6.1.3 Syntactic complexity    72
3.6.1.4 Analysis of questionnaires    73
3.6.2 A qualitative analysis    74
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION    75
4.1 Effects of blog-integrated peer feedback revision on students’ writing performance    76
4.1.1 Comparison on text length    76
4.1.1.1 Content length    77
4.1.1.2 Sentence Length    79
4.1.2 Comparison on lexical richness    81
4.1.2.1 Type-token ratio    81
4.1.2.2 Lexical Density    83
4.1.3 Comparison on syntactic complexity    85
4.1.3.1 T-Units    85
4.1.3.2 T-Unit length    87
4.2 Analysis of questionnaire data    90
4.2.1. Comparison on the writing attitudes between the two groups    90
4.2.1.1 Usefulness    91
4.2.1.2 Anxiety    92
4.2.1.3 Interest and motivation    94
4.2.1.4 Writing strategies    95
4.2.2 Results of experimental group’ responses to the blog-evaluation questionnaire    97
4.2.2.1 Learning effect    98
4.2.2.2 Confidence in the ability of peer students    99
4.2.2.3 Interaction and Preference    101
4.2.2.4. Responses to open-ended questions    103
4.3 Discussion    108
4.3. 1 Discussion and comparison of participants’ writing performance between the two groups    108
4.3.2 Discussion and comparison of the subjects’ writing attitude    113
4.3.3. Discussion of subjects’ opinions toward blog-integrated peer feedback    119
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION    123
5.1 Summary of the findings    123
5.2 Limitations of the study    125
5.3 Directions for future research    125
5.4 Pedagogical implications    128
REFERENCES    132
Appendix A  The Writing Attitude Questionnaire (寫作態度問卷)    144
Appendix B  The Blog-Evaluation Questionnaire (Chinese Version)    146
Appendix C  The Blog-Evaluation Questionnaire (English Version)    148
Appendix D  The Blog-integrated Peer Feedback Checklist    150
Appendix E  Guidelines for Defining T-Units    152
Appendix F  The Percentage of Students’ Positive and Negative Responses to the Writing Attitude Questionnaire    153
Appendix G  In-class Writing: Pre-test    157
Appendix H  In-class Writing: Post-test    158
Appendix I   Student Samples of the Blog-integrated Peer Feedback Revision    159


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Difference between Web-based Learning Interaction and Traditional Classroom Interaction    30
Table 2.2 History of Blogs    37
Table 3.1 Distribution of the Subjects in the Study    58
Table 3.2 The Weekly Schedule and Writing Procedures for the Two Groups    69
Table 4.1 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the Content Length of the Pre-tests    77
Table 4.2 Analysis of Covariance for the Content Length between the Two Groups    78
Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of the Content Length    79
Table 4.4 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-class Regression Coefficient of the Sentence Length of the Pre-tests    80
Table 4.5 Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for the Sentence Length between the Two Groups    80
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of the Sentence Length on the Pretests and Posttests between the Two Groups    81
Table 4.7 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the Type-token Ratio of the Pre-tests    82
Table 4.8 Analysis of Covariance for the Type-token Ratio between the Two Groups    82
Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of the Type-token Ratio on the pretests and post-tests between the Two Groups    83
Table 4.10 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the Lexical Density of the Pre-tests    84
Table 4.11 Analysis of Covariance for the Lexical Density between the Two Groups    84
Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of the Lexical Density on the Pretests and Post-tests between the Two Groups    85
Table 4.13 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the T-Units of the Pre-tests    86
Table 4.14 Analysis of Covariance for the T-Units between the Two Groups    86

Table 4.15 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of the T-Units on the Pretests and Post-tests between the Two Groups    87
Table 4.16 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the T-Unit Length of the Pre-tests    88
Table 4.17 Analysis of Covariance for the T-Unit Length between the Two Groups    89
Table 4.18 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of the T-Unit Length on the pretests and post-tests between the two groups    89
Table 4.19 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the Category, “Usefulness”    91
Table 4.20 Analysis of Covariance for “Usefulness” between the Two Groups    91
Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of “Usefulness” on the Pretests and Post-tests between the Two Groups    92
Table 4.22 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the Category, “Anxiety”    92
Table 4.23 Analysis of Covariance for “Anxiety” between the Two Groups    93
Table 4.24 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of “Anxiety” on the Pretests and Post-tests between the Two Groups    93
Table 4.25 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the category, “Interest and Motivation”    94
Table 4.26 Analysis of Covariance for “Interest and Motivation” between the Two Groups    94
Table 4.27 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of “Interest and Motivation” on the Pretests and Post-tests between the Two Groups    95
Table 4.28 Summary of the Homogeneity of Within-Class Regression Coefficient of the Category, “Writing Strategies”    96
Table 4.29 Analysis of Covariance for “Writing Strategies” between the Two Groups    96
Table 4.30 Descriptive Statistics of the Means of “Writing Strategies” on the Pretests and Post-tests between the Two Groups    97
Table 4.31 One Sample T-test Results of the Blog-evaluation Questionnaire in “Learning Effects”    99
Table 4.32 One Sample T-test Results of the blog-evaluation Questionnaire in “Confidence in the Ability of Peer Students”    100
Table 4.33 One Sample T-test Results of the blog-evaluation Questionnaire in “Interaction and Preference”    102

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The potentials of Blogs    41
Figure 3.1 A Flow Chart of the Study Procedure    57
Figure 3.2 Overview of a Student’s Personal Blog    64
                                

REFERENCES
I. Chinese References
林茂松 (2000)。遠東高中英文作文。台北：遠東圖書公司。
財團法人語言訓練測驗中心 (2003a)。全民英檢高級複試統計報告。
線上檢索日期：2009年5月30日。　　　　
　　　http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/a_statistics.htm
財團法人語言訓練測驗中心 (2003b)。全民英檢優級複試統計報告。
　　　線上檢索日期：2009年5月30日。
　　　http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/research/s/geptsuperiorreport.pdf
莊雪華 (2005)。網路部落格在教學上的應用─以國小英語教材教法為例。教
師之友，46 (5)，34-42。
黃素月、曾瑾玲。(2001) 。英文寫作練習I [English writing practice I]。台北：
三民書局。
陳賢, 陳明亮 (2005)。挑戰互動式英文寫作與翻譯總複習講義 [English 　　
　　　Translation Review]。台北：龍騰文化。

II. English References

Badger, R. & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54 (2), 153-160.
Bartlett, E. J. (1981). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2003). Blogging to learn. The Knowledge Tree: An e-Journal of Flexible Learning in VET, 4. Retrieved February 28, 2008. from http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition04/pdf/Blogging_to_Learn.pdf

Bauer, E. (2004). An overview of the weblog tools market. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.elise.com/web/a/an_overview_of_the_weblog_tools_market.php
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer responses on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215-241.
Bernstein, M. (2004). Do weblogs improve writing? Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan0401.html#note_35302
Block, M. (2001). Communicating off the page. Retrieved February28, 2008 from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA155178.html
Blood, R. (2000).Weblogs: A history and perspective. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Rebecca's Pocket, http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html
Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (2), Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html
Campbell, A. P. (2004). Using live journal for authentic communication in EFL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(9), Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-LiveJournal
Carney, Nat. (2009). Blogging in foreign language education. In M. Thomas. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. IGI global.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL QUARTERLY, 28, 181-188.
Cha, H. J. (2008). The effects of process writing via e-mail on vocational high school students' English writing ability. Master Thesis. National Chen-chi University.
Chang, P. C. (2002). The effects of the process writing instruction on Taiwanese high school students' overall English writing ability. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chang, S. C. (2004). The effect of multi-draft writing procedure on EFL high school students' writing quality and their attitudes toward writing and revision. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chao, T. C. (2004).The effects of web-based peer assessment on lowering senior high students' writing apprehension. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15 (2), 1-14.
Chen, B. C. (1996). A case study on developing writing ability and cultural understanding through Internet. NSC86-2411-H-006-003.
Chen, D. W. (1998). Understanding the two sources of EFL writing performance as the means to improve EFL writing instruction. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, 197-207.
Chen, D. W. (1997). The state of college EFL composition instruction---A survey of college EFL composition instructor's professional background and views. In Dept. of English, National Taiwan Normal University (Ed.), Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.
Chen, P. J. (1999). A prototype of online intermediate English writing for Chinese speakers of learners: a six-week intensive course. Proceeding of Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 403-411). Taipei: Crane.
Chen, S. H. (1993). DTP system as applied in teaching high school English writing. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chen, Y. M. (1998). Peer review and learning styles. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing. 289-298.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000). On BBS-assisted EFL learning: Exploring a virtual community for college students. Master Thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Cheng, Y. S. (2004). EFL Students' writing anxiety: Sources and implications. English Teaching and Learning, 29 (2), 41-62.
Chi, F. M. (2005). Harnessing peers' power in EFL: Revision with peer feedback. English Teaching and Learning, 30 (1), 25-40.
Chien, I. C. (2002). A study of an on-line multi-user English learning environment for senior high school students. Master Thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Chiu, Y. H. (2002). Cooperative learning in our junior high school English classroom: an action research. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Choi, C. (2008). Instructional blogging. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (p. 669). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29684.

Chou, H. C. (2007). Effects of weblog-integrated writing instruction on English writing performance of vocational high school students. Unpublished Thesis Proposal.
Chou, M. C. (1998). How peer negotiations shape revisions. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching. 349-359. Taipei: Crane.
Chou, M. C. (2004). Peer negotiations in an EFL writing classroom. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on ETL in ROC.
Collin’s COBUILD. (2001). English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, Major New Edition. Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.
Curling, C. (2001). A closer look at weblogs. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.llrx.com/columns/notes46.htm
Dan Li, B.A. (2005).Why do you blog: A uses-and-gratifications inquiry into bloggers' motivations. Unpublished Master of Art dissertation .University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Day, M. (1995).The network-based writing classroom: the ENFI idea. Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.2/coverweb/cmcmday.html
Dibello, C. (2003). Building confidence and competence through prewriting activities. Retrieved February 28,2008 from http://www.cavesbooks.com.tw/e_magazine/e_magazine_article.aspx?identify=iwlhx&language1=0&sn=196
DiGiovanni, E. & G. Nagaswami. (2001). Online peer review: Alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-273.
Dipardo, A., & Freedman, S.W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretical foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58 (2), 119-149.
Dvorak, J. C. (2002). The blog phenomenon. Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,81500,00.asp
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellison, N. B., & Wu, Y. (2008). Blogging in the classroom: A preliminary exploration of student attitudes and impact on comprehension. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 99-122.
Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (2), 123-136.
Ferdig, R. E., & Trammell, K. D.(2004). Content delivery in the 'Blogosphere' [Electronic version]. T.H.E. Journal, February 2004.Retrieved Feb 28, 2008 from Fttp://www.thejourrnal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=4677
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155-182.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Toward knowledge in writing: Illustrations from revision studies. NY, In.: Spring-Verlag.
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39 (4), 449-461.
Flower, L.S. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Communication, 32, 365-387.
Freedman, W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71-106.
Grant, L. & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (2), 123-145.
Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.
Hayes, J. R. (2000).A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (2000, Eds. ), Perspectives writing：Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE：International Reading Association.
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Homburg, T. J. (1984). Holistic Evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively? TESOL Quarterly, 18 (1), 87-107.
Hsu, R. O. (2006). A study of the effects of dialogue journal writing and guided writing on Taiwanese high school students' writing proficiency and writing apprehension. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Huang, A. H. (2003). The effects of on-line peer-evaluation on English writing for students in senior high school. Master Thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Huang, H. H. (2004). A study of senior high students' responses to peer and teacher feedback on EFL compositions. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Huang, Y. P. (2001). A review of composition teacher's written feedback from learners' perspectives. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing. 456-465.
Hung, S. T. (2009). Promoting self-assessment strategies: An electronic portfolio approach. Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved May 30, 2009. From http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_09_sh.php
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hurlburt, S. (2008). Defining tools for a new learning space: Writing and Reading Class Blogs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4 (2). 182-189. Retrieved May 30, 2009. from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/hurlburt0608.htm
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44, 279-285.
Hyland, K. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writer. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (3), 255-286.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.
Johnson, A. (2004). Creating a writing course utilizing class and student blogs. The Internet TESL Journal, 10 (8). Retrieved Feb 28. 2008. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Johnson-Blogs/
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 566-72
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44 (4), 294-304.
Kennedy, K. (2003). Writing with web logs. techLearning.com. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/TL/2003/02/blogs.php
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42 (2), 183-215.
Koffolt, K. & Holt, S.L. (1997). Using the "writing process" with non-native users of English. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 53-60.
Kroonenberg, N. (1994). Developing communicative and thinking skills via electronic mail. TESOL Journal, 4 (2), 24-27.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An index of ESL development. TESOL Quarterly, 12 (4), 439-448.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307-322.
Lee, K. C. (2004). Computer mediated communication (CMC) discussion tools in the second language classroom. STETS Language & Communication Review, 3 (1), Singapore: National University of Singapore. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.stets.org.sg/vol3N1_2004KCLee.pdf
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Li, T. Z. (2006). Research into the application of blogs to future network writing. Master thesis. National Hua-lien Educational University.
Lin, S. E., Huang, T. S., Lin, C. Y., & Chen, K. T. (1994). Prompting and grading of the English composition in JCEE. Papers from the Tenth Conference on English Language Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, p. 577-609. Taipei: Crane.
Lin, W., Yueh, H., Liu, Y., Murakami, M., Kakusho, K., & Minoh, M. (2006). Using blogs for advancing learning in an international distance course. Paper accepted for presentation at The 4th AEARU Workshop on Network Education, Nov. 16-17, 2006. Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, Y. U. (2007). An exploratory study of English multimedia writing: Implementing weblogs in a college composition class. Master Thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Liou, H. C. (2000). Assessing learner strategies using computers: New insights and limitations. Computer-assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 65-78.
Liou, H. C. & Peng, Z. Y. (2009) Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37 (3), 514-525. Retrieved May 30, 2009 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCH-4WFPPDM-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1ef88c72857bc2613e3efad2943070bf
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5 (1), 17-29.
Lockhardt, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 274-284.
Lu, K. Y. (2003). Effect of e-mail exchanges on EFL senior high school students’ writing. Master Thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students think? ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-84.
Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 151-179.
McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalization of common sense: Papers by John McCarthy. Edited by V. Lifshitz. Norwood, NJ, USA: Ablex.
Mendonca, C. O. & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769.
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching & Learning, 27, 85-103. (NSC91-2815-C-006-088-H)
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 (2), 118-141. (SSCI) (NSC91-2815-C-006-088-H)
Mitchell, D. (2003). Thoughts about weblog in education. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.teachnology.org/stories/storyReader$150
Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54 (1), 47-53.
Mynard, J. (2007). A blog as a tool for reflection for English language learners. Professional Teaching Articles. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_Nov_07_jm.pdf
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.
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.
Nold, E. (1979). Revising: Toward a theory. ERIC Document Reproductive Service. ED 172212.
Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66-85.
Oravec, J. A. (2002). Bookmarking the world: Weblog applications in education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 616-621.
Paquet, S. (2003). Personal knowledge publishing and its uses in research. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=96934&d=744&h=746&f=745
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265-289.
Peng Z. Y. (2007). A study of blogging for enhancement of EFL college students' writing. Master Thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Poling, C. (2005). Blog on: Building communication and collaboration among staff and students. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32, Retrieved February 28, 2008 From http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ697316
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.
Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students' texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 273-292.
Richardson, W. (2004). Blogging and RSS – the “what’s it?” and “how to” of powerful new web tools for educators. Information Today. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan04/richardson.shtml
Riley, S. M. (1995). Peer responses in an ESL writing lass: Student interaction and subsequent draft revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3031.
Rollinson, P. (1998). Peer response and revision in an ESL writing group: A case study. Unpublished PhD thesis. Universidad Autonoma de Mardrid.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23-30.
Schroeder, R. (2003). Blogging to disseminate best online learning practices and technology news. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 56-60.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. & Matsuda, P.K., eds. (2001). On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
Song, C. (2007). Enhancing low level EFL undergraduates' composition by using an online collaborative web serious game: Moses with blogs. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4466-4474). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved Feb 28, 2008 from http://www.editlib.org/p/26023.

Soo, W. M. (2004). Strategies for educational blogs. Paper presented at the Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Singapore, Nov 24-26.
Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and sentence complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 82-119.
Sullivan, D., Brown. C. E., and Nielson, N. L.(1998). Computer-mediated peer review of student papers. Journal of Education for Business, 74 (2), 117-121.
Sullivan, N. (1993). Teaching writing on a computer network. TEESOL Journal, 3 (1), 34-35.
Sullivan, N. (1998). Developing critical reading and writing skills: Empowering minority students in a networked computer classroom. In J. Swaffar et al. (Eds). 1998. Language Learning Online: Theory and Practice in the ESL and L2 Computer Classroom. Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.
Tan, T. Y., Ow, E. G. J., & Ho, P. Y. J. M. (2005). Weblogs in education. IT Literature Review, Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://www.edublog.net/files/papers/weblogs%20in%20education.pdf.
Tan, Y. H., Teo, E. H. Aw, W. L., & Lim, W. Y. (2005). Portfolio building in Chinese language learning using blogs. Paper presented at the Blog Talk Downunder 2005 Conference, Sydney, Australia, May 19-22.
Topping, K. J. & Ehly, S. E. (2001). Peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychological Consultation, 12 (2), 113-32.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-76.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25 (6), 631-645.
Tsai, C. H. (2002). The practice of cooperative language learning in web-based environment. Master Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Tsai, S. Y. (2006). The effects of blog integrated into writing instruction program on writing capability and writing attitude for sixth grade students. Master Thesis. National Tainan University.
Tso, W. W. (2002). The effectiveness of peer evaluation on EFL writing. Master Thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (2), 147-170.
Tsui, B. M. (1999). Young ESL writers' responses to peer and teacher comments in writing. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taiwan, Taipei: Crane.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217-235.
Paiva, Vera. (1999). CALL and online journals. World CALL Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. The Netherlands: Sweets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds and Trans.). Cambridge Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. J. (2004). A study on online peer feedback. English Teaching and Learning, 29(2), 63-77.
Ward, J. M. (2004). Blog assisted language learning (BALL): Push button publishing for the pupils. TEFL Web Journal, 3 (1). Retrieved February 2, 2008 from http://www.teflweb-j.org/v3n1/blog_ward.pdf
Warschauer, M. (1995). E-mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALTCO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M, & Richard, K. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Winjia, E. (2005). Understanding Weblogs: a communicative perspective. Blogtalks 2.0. Retrieved February 28, 2008. http://elmine.wijnia.com/weblog/archives/wijnia_understandingweblogs.pdf
Wu, J. S. (1995). A case study of computer world processing in college English writing and instruction. Proceeding of ROC English Composition Teaching Conference. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Wu, W. S. (2004). Comparison of Web-enhanced Learning Environments in an E-Learning Age. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, (pp. 659-668). Taipei: Crane.
Wu, W. S. (2005). Using blogs in an EFL writing class. Paper presented at 2005 Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics, Department of Applied English, Ming Chuan University. Taipei: Crane Publishing. 426-432.
Wu, W. S. (2006) The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature. 3. 125-139.
Yan, S. C. (1998). The World Wide Web as an EFL writing tool. The Proceeding of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching, 897-903. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Yang, A., Chan, A., Lik-ko Ho, L. & Tam, B. (2005). Does an open forum promote learning among students? A collaborative learning approach. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3). Retrieved Feb 28, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_05_ay.php
Yang, S. H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 11-21. Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_2/2.pdf
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: process of discovering meanings. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (2), 195-209.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second language Writing, 4, 209-222.
Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 4, 311-345.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文