簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 張淑禎
論文名稱： 多次文稿寫作教學之成效及其對寫作和改寫態度之影響研究
The Effect of Multi-draft Writing Procedure on EFL High School Students’ Writing Quality and Their Attitudes Toward Writing and Revision
指導教授： 馮和平
Feng, Ho-Ping
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2005
畢業學年度： 93
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 108
中文關鍵詞： 寫作教學
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：113  下載：10 
分享至:
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

    • 本研究旨在探討多次文稿寫作對於高中生英文寫作能力之影響，及其於學生對寫作和修改之態度的影響。研究時間為四個月。參與本研究的學生為七十七位就讀台北縣某國立高中三年級的兩班學生。兩班各分為多稿組和單稿組，多稿組於九次作文課中共寫了三篇題目，每篇修改兩次。單稿組則於九次作文課各寫一篇新題目。學生於第一次作文課所寫之作文為作文前測，九次作文課結束後另寫一篇文章作為後測。作文評閱標準根據大學入學考試之作文評閱方式。作文前後測同時也各填寫一份探討寫作及修改態度的問卷。
    研究結果顯示：多稿組和單稿組在作文品質上均有顯著進步，尤其在組織方面進步最多。然而，多稿組的學生和單稿組學生在作文能力的進步上並無顯著差異。另外，多稿寫作比單稿寫作更能減低學生的寫作焦慮，同時也更能使學生認同修改對作文的價值。多稿組學生不但喜歡修改舊作甚於寫新作文，並且也了解到修改時可能需要做全文大幅度的修改，而非只侷限在字句上。因此，本研究建議高中英文教師要求學生進行需要改寫的多稿寫作，以便提昇其寫作能力同使降低作文焦慮並增進對改寫的重視。此方法尤其適合英文作文經驗不足或英文程度不佳的學生。

    The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of multi-draft writing on EFL high school students’ writing quality and their attitudes toward writing and revision. The study lasted for four months, and the participants included 77 senior students in a high school in Taipei County. The participants were divided into a multi-draft group and a single-draft group during the nine writing meetings. The multi-draft group wrote on three topics, with each topic revised twice; the single-draft group wrote on nine topics. All the participants took a writing pre-test and a writing post-test. The participants’ performance in the pre-test and the post-test was evaluated based on the rating scale used in the Joint College Entrance Exam. They also responded to a pre-test questionnaire and a post-test questionnaire.
    Both groups showed significant improvement in their writing quality, especially in organization. However, no significant difference was found in the improvement of the participants’ writing quality between the two groups. Although multi-draft writing and single-draft writing were equally effective in improving students’ writing ability, the multi-draft writing experience was significantly more effective in reducing students’ apprehension for English writing. Also, at the end of the study, students in the multi-draft group showed a stronger preference for revision and appreciation of its benefits than students in the single-draft group. They not only preferred to revise rather than to write on a new topic but also had understood writing as rewriting and were more willing to engage in major reconstruction of the whole text. Therefore, multi-draft writing was recommended as an effective approach for an English writing course, especially for beginning writers or students whose English proficiency was at low and intermediate levels.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT III LIST OF TABLES IX LIST OF FIGURES X CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Background and Motivation 1 Purpose of the Study 3 Definitions of key terms 4 Significance of the Study 6 Summary 7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 8 From Product Writing to Process Writing 8 Product Approach 8 Process Approach 9 ESL/EFL Writing Research and Pedagogy 10 Effects of Writing Procedures on Writing 12 Focus in Instruction: on Form vs. on Meaning 12 Effect of Revision and Multi-draft Writing on Writing Qaulity and Attitudes 15 Students’ Difficulties in Revision 18 Teacher Feedback 20 The Effect of Teacher Feedback on Students’ Writing Quality 20 Teacher Feedback on Grammar 22 Teacher Feedback in Multi-draft Writing 23 Direct and Indirect Teacher Feedback on Errors 24 Effective and Ineffective Teacher Feedback 25 Peer Review 26 Advantages of Peer Review 26 Disadvantages of Peer Review 28 Comparing Peer Feedback With Teacher Feedback 31 Summary of the Reviewed Literature 32 CHAPTER THREE METHOD 33 Research Design 33 Setting 34 Participant 35 Writing Procedures 36 Classroom Instruction 37 Peer Feedback 37 Student Composition Sharing and Analysis 38 Assorted Exercises 38 Brainstorming 39 Writing Practice 39 Teacher Feedback 41 Data Collection Procedures 41 Writing Pre-test and Post-test 42 Attitude Questionnaires 42 Instruments 43 The Rating Scale 43 The Pre-test Attitude Questionnaire 44 The Post-test Attitude Questionnaire 44 Data Sources & Analysis Procedures 45 The Writing Pre-test and Post-test 45 Rater Training Session 45 Reliability Testing 46 Comparison of Writing Pre-test and Post-test 46 Pre-test and Post-test Attitude Questionnaires 47 Summary of the Method 47 CHAPTER FOUR RESLUTS AND DISCUSSION 48 Results 48 Results of Participants’ Writing Scores 48 Results of Participants’ Responses to the Attitude Questionnaires 53 Comparison of the Participants’ Responses to the Pre-test Attitude Questionnaire Between the Two Groups 54 The Likert-scale Items 54 The Open-ended Question 55 Comparison of the Participants’ Responses to the Post-test Questionnaire Between the Two Groups 57 The Likert-scale Items 57 The Multiple Response Item 60 The Open-ended Questions 61 Discussion 65 The Participants’ Writing Improvement Between the Pre-test and the Post-test 65 Comparison of Participants’ Writing Improvement Between the Two Groups 66 Comparison of Participants’ Attitudes Toward Writing Between the Two Groups 67 Comparison of Participants’ Attitudes Toward Revision Between the Two Groups 68 Participants’ Attitudes Toward Teacher Feedback 69 Participants’ Attitudes Toward Peer Feedback 70 Summary of the Results and Discussion 71 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 72 Summary of findings 72 Pedagogical Implications 74 Limitations of the Study 75 Suggestions for Future Research 75 Summary 77 REFERENCES 78 APPENDIXES 86 APPENDIX A Pre-test Attitude Questionnaire 86 APPENDIX B Categorization of Pre-test Attitude Questionnaire Items 88 APPENDIX C Post-test Attitude Questionnaire 89 APPENDIX D Categorization of Post-test Questionnaire Items 93 APPENDIX E The Ten Topics in the Study 94 APPENDIX F Rating Scale from the National Testing Center 95 APPENDIX G A Modified Rating Scale Based on the JCEE Rating Scale 97 APPENDIX H Sample Compositions 98 APPENDIX I Assorted Exercises 100 APPENDIX J Symbols for Composition Correction 108 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 The Number and Gender of Participants 36 Table 2 The Two Different Writing Procedures for Two Groups 40 Table 3 Comparison of the Writing Scores in the Pre-test Between Two Groups 49 Table 4 Comparison of the Participants’ Composition Scores in the Previous Semester Between the Two Groups 50 Table 5 Comparison of Writing by Multi-draft Group Between Pre-test and Post-test 51 Table 6 Comparison of Writing by Single-draft Group Between Pre-test and Post-test 52 Table 7 Comparison of the Writing Scores in the Post-test Between Two Groups 53 Table 8 Comparison of Participants' Responses to the Pre-test Questionnaire Between the Two Groups 55 Table 9 Participants’ Attitudes Toward Revision in the Pre-test Questionnaire 56 Table 10 Comparison of Participants' Responses to the Post-test Questionnaire Between the Two Groups 58 Table 11 Comparison of Participants’ Responses to the Multiple Response Item 60 Table 12 Participants’ Attitudes Toward Revision in the Post-test Questionnaire 61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 The Procedure of the Study 34

    Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 3, 227-257.
    Badger, R. & White, G. (2000). A Process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54, 2, 153-160.
    Bamberg, B. (1978). Composition instruction does make a difference: A comparison of the high school preparation of college freshmen in regular and remedial English classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 47-59.
    Beach, R. (1979). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students’ revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 2, 111-119.
    Bridwell, L. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth-grade students’ transational writing. Research of the Teaching of English, 14, 3, 197-222.
    Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing 5, 1-19.
    Chen, D. W. (1997). The state of college EFL composition instruction—A survey of college EFL composition instructors’ 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, 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.. (2000). Finding clues, not detecting errors—a different approach to EFL composition. ED 465 270.
    Chen, Y. M. (1997). A Study of the Effects of Single-Drafted and Multi-Drafted Contexts on EFL Students’ Writing Performances and Their Perceptions of Revision. National Chung Cheng University School Journal, 8, 1, 439-443.
    Chiang M. (1998). The Effects of Model-based Instruction on Chinese Students’ English Writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. P.113-114. Taipei: Crane.
    Conrad, S. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: text, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 2, 147-179.
    Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
    Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition Communication, 32, 400-414.
    Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 29, 1, 33-53.
    Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31, 2, 315-339.
    Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1, 1-11.
    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.
    Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39, 4, 449-461.
    Gomez, Jr., R. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient students. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 2, 209-233.
    Hansen, B. (1978). Rewriting is a waste of time. College English, 39, 956-960.
    Harris, M. (1989). Composing Behaviors of One-and Multi-Draft Writers. College English, 51, 2, 174-191.
    Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 2, 141-163.
    Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal 80, 287-308.
    Huang, Y. P. (2001). A review of composition teachers’ written feedback from learners’ perspectives. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 456-465.
    Hull, G. (1987). The editing process in writing: A performance study of more skilled and less skilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 8-29.
    Jacobs, G. M. & Curtis, A& Braine, G & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 3, 307-317.
    Jeffery, C. (1981). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the writing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 3, 215-228.
    Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationships of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal 75, 303-313.
    Kim, J. (1996). Product and process aspects of NES/EFL students’ persuasive writing in English: differences between advanced and basic writers. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2, 2, 19-40.
    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.
    Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 140-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Kuo, C. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: from lexical choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26, 1, 47-62.
    Lee, S.Y. (2001). The relationship of writing apprehension to the revision process and topic preference: a student perspective. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 504-516.
    Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-17.
    Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24, 3, 203-218.
    Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 1, 123-143.
    Lin, Maosung. (2000). Far East English Composition for Senior High School. Taipei, Taiwan: Far East Publishing Co.
    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, 605-655.
    Makino, T. (1993). Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal, 47, 337-341.
    Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 3, 274-284.
    Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254.
    Mendoca, C., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28, 745-769.
    Min, Hui-Tzu. (2003). Why peer comments fail. English Teaching & Learning, 27, 3, 85-103.
    Monahan, Brian D. (1984). Revision Strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 3, 288-303.
    Muncie, James. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal 54, 1, 46-52.
    Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 2, 113-131.
    Nelson, G.L., & Carson. J.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness of 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 writing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.
    Perl, S., (1980). Understanding Composing. College Composition and Communication, 31, 363-369.
    Pianko, Sharon. (1979). A description of the composing process of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
    Polio, C. & Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 1, 43-48.
    Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19, 2, 229-258.
    Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: a study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.
    Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 3, 407-428.
    Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: the myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly 28, 273-292.
    Ruenzel, D. (1995). Write to the point. Teacher Magazine, 6, 8, 26-32.
    Sommer, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 4, 378-388.
    Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
    Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: an exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91-119.
    Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 1, 5-13.
    Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
    Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “ The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 2, 111-222.
    Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 1, 54-66.
    Watson, C. B. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 1, 5-14.
    Yagelski, Robert P. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 2, 216-238.
    Yates, R. & Kenkel, J. (2002). Responding to sentence-level errors in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 29-47.
    Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.
    Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
    Zamel, V. (1984). In search of the key: research and practice in composition, in Jean Handscombe, R. Orem, and B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83: The question of control. 195-207. Washington, D. C.: TESOL.
    Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 1, 79-101.
    Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 3, 463-485.

    QR CODE