簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 黃馨慧
Huang Hsi-hui
論文名稱： 高中生對同儕與教師在英文寫作上評改回饋之反應研究
A Study of Senior High Students’ Responses to Peer and Teacher Feedback on EFL Compositions
指導教授： 陳純音
Chen, Chun-Yin
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2004
畢業學年度： 92
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 118
中文關鍵詞： 同儕評閱 、修改 、教師評改回饋
英文關鍵詞： Peer Review, Revision, Teacher Feedback
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：396  下載：32 
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

    • 本研究主旨在於探究高中生對同儕與教師評鑑的認知，並調查分析與描述同儕與教師回饋對高中英文作文的影響。研究對象為台北縣立某高中社會組一班共三十八名高三學生，採同儕評閱、改寫後，接受教師評鑑方式進行，研究工具包含同儕互評檢視表及意見表、自我錯誤檢視表、問卷調查及個別訪談，目的在探討台灣高中學生對同儕與教師回饋的認知及同儕與教師評鑑的有效性與適用性。
    研究結果顯示：多數受試者對同儕評閱有正面的評價，同儕有助於作文中「內容」與「拼字」的進步，同時減少對英文作文焦慮並提升其興趣。此外，所有受試者認為教師回饋明顯改善其寫作技巧，尤其是「文法」的進步。多數受試者願意接受教師的代碼評改(coding correction)，並認為自我檢視表能有助分析和減少錯誤。受試者在改寫過程中最會檢視「文法」，其次為「拼字」；同儕意見最無說服力且無法在改寫中採用也是「文法」，但最有說服力並予採用的則是「拼字」。大多數受試者贊成實施多元讀者群的方法，因其能提高他們的自主性，也包含教師的專業評語，而結合多次改寫、資料整理能使受試者了解他們的缺點且注意寫作的過程。寫作成績分析顯示，受試者的英文作文改寫稿的整體成績呈現穩定地進步，而原稿排除第二篇時也是呈現進步的趨勢。
    本論文最後根據研究結果提出教學建議，鼓勵老師在英文寫作課結合同儕評論與教師回饋，以提昇學生之學習效果，同時也建議未來深入研究的方向。

    The present semester-long study aims to explore senior high students’ perceptions of peer and teacher feedback and investigate the influence of the feedback on EFL compositions. A peer writing evaluation checklist, a peer comment form, and a self-checklist of writing codes were applied to facilitate the efficient work. The subjects were 38 third-year senior high school students from a social-science class in Taipei County. At the end of the semester, a questionnaire and an interview were conducted to elicit the subjects’ perceptions about peer reviews and teacher feedback.
    What follows are the findings of the study: Most of the subjects reacted positively to peer reviews. They perceived their great improvement in content and spelling, reduction of apprehension, as well as enhancement of their interest and confidence in English composition. Moreover, all subjects admitted that teacher feedback significantly improved their writing techniques, particularly in grammar. Most of them accepted coding correction and agreed that the self-checklist record helped them reduce their errors. Regarding revisions, the subjects examined most in grammar followed by diction. Besides, the least convincing and the most convincing comments from the peers were on grammar and on spelling respectively. Most of the subjects supported multi-audience because it promoted their learning autonomy and included the teacher’s professional comments. Multi-revisions and portfolios also helped them get to know their weak points and observe their writing processes. Their holistic scores in the subsequent revisions progressively better over the whole semester. Except for the second topic, the other original writings improved gradually as well.
    It is hoped that teachers can incorporate peer reviews with teacher feedback in their writing classes. Finally, some pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research are given.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT (CHINESE)……………………….i ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)………………………ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………iii TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………iv LIST OF TABLES……………………………vi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………vii 1.INTRODUCTION…………………………………………1 1.1 Motivation……………………………………1 1.2 Purpose of the Study…………………………….3 1.3 Research questions…………………………………4 1.4 Significance of the Study………………………5 1.5 Definition of the Terms Used in the Thesis………………6 1.6 Organization of the Thesis……………………………………7 2.LITERTURE REVIEW…………………………………………8 2.1 Issues in Multi-Evaluation……………………………………8 2.1.1 Implementation of Peer Reviews…………………8 2.1.1.1 Positive Perspectives on Peer Reviews………………10 2.1.1.2 Negative Perspectives on Peer Reviews…………………11 2.1.1.3 Students’ Capability to Apply Peer Feedback…………12 2.1.2 Implementation of Teacher Feedback…………………13 2.1.3 Implementation of Students’ Revisions……………18 2.1.4 Combination of Multi-Audience and Multi-Revisions…21 2.2 Previous Empirical Studies of Peer Comments and Teacher Feedback………………23 2.2.1 Tsui (1999) …………………………………23 2.2.2 Tso (2002) ………………………………………….26 2.2.3 Jacobs et al. (1998)………………………………29 2.2.4 Tsui & Ng (2000) …………………………………31 2.3 Summary of Chapter Two………………………………35 3 METHODOLOGY……………………………36 3.1 Subjects……………………………36 3.2 Instruments…………………………38 3.2.1 Peer Writing Evaluation Form…………………………………39 3.2.2 Peer Comment Form……………………………………………40 3.2.3 Checklist of Writing Codes………………………41 3.2.4 Questionnaire………………………42 3.2.5 Interview…………………………………43 3.3 procedures…………………………………………………44 3.3.1 Conducting Peer and Teacher Feedback…………………45 3.3.2 Planning Writing Tasks……………………………………51 3.4 Summary of Chapter Four…………………………………51 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………52 4.1 Do EFL Senior High Students Find Peer Reviews on Their Compositions Beneficial?……………………………52 4.2 What Do EFL Senior High Students Think of Teacher Feedbacks on Their Compositions?………………………64 4.3 How Do EFL Senior High Students React to the Incorporation of Peer Reviews to Revisions?……………………………………72 4.4 Does the Implementation of Multi-audience Approach with Multi-revisions and Portfolios Help EFL Senior High Students on Their Compositions? …………………77 4.5 Does the Holistic Scores of EFL Senior High Students’ Composition Progress after the Implementation of Multi-audience Approach with Multi-revisions and Portfolios?…81 4.6 Summary of Chapter Four………………………………………86 5.CONCLUSION………………………………………………………88 5.1 summary…………………………………………………88 5.2 Pedagogical Implications……………………………90 5.3 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Further Research………93 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………95 APPENDIX A: Writing Evaluation Form (English Version) …………………………102 APPENDIX B: Writing Evaluation Form (Chinese Version) ……………………………103 APPENDIX C: Peer Comment Form (English Version) ………………………………104 APPENDIX D: Peer Comment Form (Chinese Version) …………………………………….105 APPENDIX E: Self-Checklist of Writing Codes……………………………………………..106 APPENDIX F: Questionnaire about English Writing………………………………………...107 APPENDIX G: An Example of Subjects’ Original Writing and Subsequent Revisions……..110 APPENDIX H: An Example of Subjects’ Peer Reviews……………………………………..112 APPENDIX I: An Example of Subjects’ Peer Written Comments…………………………...114 APPENDIX J: An Example of Subjects’ Self-correction……………………………………115 APPENDIX K: Subjects’ Error Frequency Counts……………………………………116

    BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing Clearly: Responding to ESL Compositions. Boston, MA: Heinle.
    Blanton, L. (1987). Reshaping ESL students’ perspectives of writing. ELT Journal, 41, 112-118.
    Brown, H. D. (2001). Language assessment II: Practical classroom applications. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.
    Brown, J. D. & Hudson, Thom. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-671.
    Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “Conversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652.
    Carson, J.G., & Nelson, G.L. (1996). Chinese students perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
    Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.
    Chandrasegaran, A. (1986). An exploratory study of EL2 students; revision and self-correction skills. RELC Journal, 17(2), 26-40.
    Chang, C. C. (1998). A Case Study of the Effect of Error Correction on the Grammatical Structures of Three Chinese University Students’ EFL Writing. MA. Thesis, Department of Foreign Language and Literature, National Chin-Hua University
    Chang, P. C. (2003). The Effects of the Process Writing Instruction on Taiwanese High School Students’ Overall English Writing Ability. MA. Thesis, Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
    Charles, M. (1990). Responding to problems in written English using a student self-monitoring technique. ELT Journal, 44, 286-293.
    Chaudron, C. (1984). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on students’ composition
    revisions. RELC Journal, 15(2), 1-14.
    Chen, H. C. (2001) Diagnosis of difficulties in English writing and suggested remedial
    instructional strategies, Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.300-309). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Chen, Y. M. (1998). Peer review and learning styles, Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 289-299). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Chiang, P. J. (1993). How to Improve English Composition Teaching in Taiwan’s High Schools: A Study of Error Types and Learning Strategies. MA. Thesis, Department of English, National Kaoshiung Normal University.
    Chou, M.C. (1998). How peer negotiations shape revisions. In J. Katchen & Y. N. Liung (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 349-359). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Cohen, A.D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
    Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and Correction. New York: Longman.
    Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990) Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Feng, C. C. (2001). The Effectiveness of Grouping in an EFL Cooperative Learning Classroom. MA. Thesis, Department of English, Tamkang University.
    Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
    Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Teaching students to self-edit. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
    Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-319.
    Gere, A., & Abbott, R. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362-386.
    Heaton J. B. (1988). Testing the writing skill. Writing English Language Tests. New York: Longman.
    Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-307.
    Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
    Huang, T. L. (1993). English composition pedagogy. Applied Linguistics and Teaching English Language (pp. 197-205). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Huang, L. M., & Tang, C. C. (1997). A case study on using writing conference and
    peer-group review in teaching English composition in senior high school.
    Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.
    263-282). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Huang, Y.P. (2001). A review of composition teachers’ written feedback from learners’ perspectives. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 456-465). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Hung, S. C. (1998). A Case Study of College Freshmen's Responses to Teacher and Peer Feedback in English Compositions. MA. Thesis, Department of English, National Kaoshiung Normal University.
    Hughey, Wormuth, Heartfiel, & Jacobs. (1983). Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
    Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(3), 279-285.
    Jacobs, G., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.Y.(1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second language Writing, 7(3), 307-317.
    Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Jounral, 44(3) 294-304
    Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
    Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.
    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 preference of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24, 203-216.
    Li, H. H. (2002). A Case Study of Peer Review for University-level Undergraduate Writing Students in Taiwan. MA. Thesis, Department of Foreign Language and Literature, National Chin-Hua University.
    Lin, T. L. (2000). Student revision from teacher feedback in a writing conference. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.448-459). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Lin, S. E. (2003). (ed.) Lung Teng English Reader, Book Five.
    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.
    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. (1998). Variables influencing the Peer Review in an EFL Writing class. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 745-752). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
    Min, H.T. (2003). Why peer comments fail. English Teaching & Learning, 27 (3), 85-103.
    Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54 (1), 47-53.
    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.
    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.
    Pan, S. H. (2001). A Study of the Effects of Summary Writing with Structure Guidelines on the Writing of EFL Beginning Writers. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Foreign Language and Literature, National Cheng-Kung University.
    Paulus, T.M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
    Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55 (1), 38-46.
    Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
    Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents Prentice Hall.
    Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 273-292.
    Richards, J.C., Platt, J., & Platt. H. (1998). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching
    & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Longman.
    Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I.(1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 83-93.
    Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
    Semke, H.D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17,195-202.
    Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119.
    Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Tso, W. W. (2002). The Effectiveness of Peer Evaluation on EFL Writing. M A. Thesis, Department of English, National Kaoshiung Normal University
    Tsui, B.M. (1999). Young ESL writers’ responses to peer and teacher comments in writing. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 95-107). Taiwan, Taipei: Crane.
    Tsui, B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
    Wingfield, R.J. (1975). Five ways of dealing with errors in written composition. ELT Journal 29 (4), 311-313.
    Wu, C. P. (2002). A Study on the Use of Feedback in Senior High School English Composition: Students' Preferences and Teachers' Practices. MA. Thesis, Department of English, National Kaoshiung Normal University.
    Yang, Z. W. (1999, Feb.). Learn to Write English Composition with ease. (輕鬆學作文60篇) Taipei, Taiwan: 2000 Taipei-County-Teacher-Training Seminar.
    Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
    Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-101.
    Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
    Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492-528.

    QR CODE