臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：英語為第二語言或外國語寫作中同儕評論研究之量化與質性後設分析
作者：陳翠萍
作者(外文)：Tsuiping Chen
校院名稱：國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱：英語學系
指導教授：林惠芬
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2011
主題關鍵詞：後設分析；同儕評論；效果量；固定效果模式；隨機效果模式；同質性檢驗；異質性；meta-analysis；peer feedback；effect size；Fixed Effects Model；Random Effects Model；homogeneity hypothesis；heterogeneity
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:368
本論文採用量化及質性後設分析研究法有系統地分析歸納自1990年至2010年間以英語為第二語言或外國語寫作課中同儕評論活動的相關文獻。本論文共收集九十五篇文獻為後設分析的主體。其中，在量化後設分析方面，最初有四十九篇文獻為可用樣本，然而，經過篩選之後，只有十一篇文獻提供可計算效果量之完整數據。在質性後設分析方面，本研究採用Barney Glaser 和 Anselm Strauss (1967) 所提出之紮根理論(Grounded Theory)中的持續比較法 (Constant Comparison Method) 來分析自九十五篇文獻中選出的五十四篇文獻。這些資料經過歸納之後分為四個分支的同儕評論研究，包括對同儕評論看法的研究、同儕評論立場的研究、同儕評論訓練的研究、以及電腦為輔助同儕評論的研究。
在量化後設分析方面，本研究採用固定效果模式 (Fixed Effects Model) 及隨機效果模式 (Random Effects Model) 來分析同儕評論對寫作提升的效果量大小。在固定效果模式的推算下，根據Cohen (1977) 所訂的標準，結果顯示同儕評論對以英文為第二語言或外國語的學生寫作提升有正面及接近中度的效果量 (d=0.48)。 然而從十一篇文獻推算出的個別效果量並沒有通過同質性的檢驗 (homogeneous hypothesis)，亦即，用樣本誤差來解釋效果量差異的假設並不成立。因此，本研究進一步採用變異數分析類推法 (Analog to the Analysis of Variance) 來分析文獻樣本中的相關變數是否為影響效果量的變異數。分析結果顯示學生的英文能力、執行同儕評論活動的長短及有否提供特別的同儕評論訓練及練習為三項可能是造成效果量差異的變數。此外，由於隨機效果模式會把研究文獻之間的變異數也納入考慮計算，因此，由此模式所推得的效果量也由0.48提升至0.85。此結果意味著當隨機變異數被考慮而納入計算時，同儕評論的效果量也隨之提升；再者，由於此模式推算之結果亦通過同質性檢驗，更進一步肯定同儕評論對寫作提升的效果量是介於中度偏高度的結論。
在質性後設分析方面，經由紮根理論的持續比較法分析後，本研究歸納出四個關於同儕評論研究之主要發現：(一)成功的同儕評論活動有賴於參與活動學生的適當及正確態度及教師充分的參與及適時的介入。(二)學生評論者採取「發現型」的立場來給予同儕評論應該被鼓勵與培養；而且教師應適時給予學生評論訓練及示範。(三)同儕評論訓練是決定同儕評論活動對寫作教學成效的主要因素；而且，教師是成功訓練的主要推手。(四)適當地運用科技於同儕評論活動及訓練有助於提升寫作課的動力並可增進同儕評論過程中同儕的互動。總體而言，此四個主題的發現，意味著教師利用同儕評論活動於寫作教學時，必須考慮到教師、學習者、訓練及科技這四種因素之間的相互關聯。
本研究透過使用量化及質性後設分析研究法來歸納以英文為第二語言或外國語的同儕評論研究文獻並提供了以下貢獻。首先，本研究引導讀者從多重面向來審視同儕評論的研究。第二，它提供給教授英文為第二語言或外國語的教師、研究者及學生在教學上、研究方向上及同儕評論技巧上實務之建議。第三，本研究同時也提供教學設計者、程式設計者、及軟體設計者諸多訊息；而這些訊息可以讓他們考慮到科技的性能及科技所能提供的各種可能性，進而設計出一個更能有效將同儕評論應用於寫作教學的數位平台。此外，本論文也補充之前後設分析或相關研究 (Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005) 對這個主題研究的不足來增加學者對本領域研究的了解。
The research employed both quantitative and qualitative meta-analysis methods to systematically synthesize empirical studies investigating peer feedback activities in an ESL/EFL writing class between the years of 1990-2010. Ninety-five individual studies concerning ESL/EFL peer feedback were included in the final body of research for the synthesis. Of these 95 studies, 49 studies were considered eligible for quantitative meta-analysis, and 11 studies provided sufficient data to estimate the effectiveness of peer feedback, i.e. effect size via Cohen’s d-index on ESL/EFL writing improvement. Constant comparison method, which originated from Glaser and Strauss’ Grounded Theory (1967), was used to analyze the 54 of the 95 studies that contained qualitative data, later organized into four strands of ESL/EFL peer feedback research.
For the quantitative meta-analysis, two models, Fixed Effects Model and Random Effects Model, were employed to analyze the effect sizes. The results of the analysis using the Fixed Effects Model indicated that peer feedback had positive and near medium effect on ESL/EFL students’ writing improvement (d=0.48). However, the effect size estimated for each of the samples of the 11 studies did not turn out to be homogeneous. Therefore, the hypothesis that sampling error explains the difference in these effect sizes was rejected. Due to the heterogeneity in the sample, the approach of the analog to the Analysis of Variance was employed to look for systematic effects of influence from study-level descriptors. The results of the further analysis suggested that participants’ English proficiency, the length of peer feedback treatment, and the provision of specific peer feedback demonstration or training might be potential moderating variables for excessive effect size variance. Under the analysis of the Random Effects Model, the random variance component was taken into consideration and added into a series of calculations. The weighted mean effect size (d) was enhanced from 0.48 to 0.85, which suggested that after controlling for the random variability, the effect size was enhanced. In addition, the homogeneity hypothesis was not rejected, suggesting the excessive variance among effect sizes would not exist when taking the random variance component into calculation. This further analysis suggested that peer feedback had medium to large effect on students’ writing improvement.
Four main themes emerged from the qualitative meta-analysis through the constant comparison on the findings and discussions of the 54 studies. The four main themes were: (1) The success of peer feedback was established on participants’ appropriate attitude and teacher’s sufficient involvement and timely intervention; (2) The discovery type of stances in peer reviewing should be encouraged and cultivated through training and a teacher’s modeling; (3) Peer feedback training was a key factor in deciding the success of peer feedback activities in the writing instruction, and teachers played a critical role in designing successful peer feedback training; and (4) Appropriately incorporating technology into peer interaction and peer feedback training in the writing classrooms helped enhance classroom dynamics which might help the peer feedback process. Overall, the four main themes suggested that writing instructors should consider the interrelation among teachers, learners, training, and technology when they employ peer feedback activities in the writing classrooms.
With using both the quantitative and qualitative meta-analysis methods, the study made several contributions. First, it directs readers to perceive ESL/EFL peer feedback research from multiple aspects. Second, it benefits different audiences, such as writing instructors, researchers and learners, by providing pedagogical implications, research directions, and peer feedback strategies. Third, this research also informed instructional designers, technology programmers, and even software developers to consider the capabilities or affordances of technology to develop a better platform to enhance peer discussion in a writing classroom. Additionally, the research reduced the gaps identified in previous reviews (Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005) and added to our understandings of overall findings and research trends in the field of ESL/EFL peer feedback in a writing classroom.
REFERENCES
Note 1: Studies that were included in the quantitative meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk (*).
Note 2: Studies that were included in the qualitative meta-analysis are marked with two asterisks (**).
Note 3: Studies that were included in both kinds of meta-analyses are marked with three asterisks (***).

Aldson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Aldson &A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.

Aldson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern language Journal, 78, 465-487.

Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. (1990). Using performative assessment instruments with ESL student writers. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 227-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics & pedagogy (pp. 90-116). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58.

Baumann, J. F., & Duff-Hester, A. M. (2002). Making sense of classroom worlds: Methodology in teacher research. In M. L. kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Methods of literacy research: The methodology chapters from the handbook of reading research, volume III (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beaven, M. (1977). Individualized goal setting, self-evaluation, and peer evaluation. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp.135-156). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Berg, E.C. (1999a). Preparing ESL students for peer response. TESOL Journal, 8, 20-25.

**Berg, E. C. (1999b). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.

Blok, H. (1999). Reading to young children in educational settings: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 49, 343-371.

**Briane, G.. (1997). Beyond word-processing: Networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45-58.

**Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and composition, 18, 275-292.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices. NY: Pearson Education.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 26, 635-652.

Bruffee, K. (1985). A short course in writing (3rd ed.). Boston: Little Brown.

Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair (Ed.), The child’s conception of language (pp.241-256). NY: Springer-Verlag.

Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 21-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M., et al. (2003) Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 671-684.

Carson, J. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 37-60.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 17-30.

**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.

Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432-463). NY: Macmillan.

*Chen, Y. (1998). Peer Review and Learning Styles. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 289-298). Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co.

*Chen, H. & Liao, M. (1997). Developing Audience Awareness of Narrative Writing Through the Task-Based Approach. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 315-324). Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co.

**Cheng, M. C. (2007). Improving interaction and feedback with computer mediated communication in Asian EFL composition classes: A case study. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 4(1), 65-97.

**Chi, F. (2005). Harnessing peers’ power in EFL: revision with peer feedback. English Teaching & Learning, 30(1), 25-40.

**Chien, C. (2005). Effects of online peer response on EFL college writing. Unpublished master thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.

**Choi, J. (2008). The role of online collaboration in promoting ESL writing.
English Language Teaching, 1(1), 34-49.

Chou, M. C. (1998). How peer negotiations shape revision. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 349-359). Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co.

**Chuang, H. (2005). Taiwanese students’ perceptions on peer review activity. Unpublished master thesis, Ming Chuan University, Taiwan.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). NY: Academic press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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.

Cook, T. D., & Cambell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field setting. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cooper, H. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of educational Research, 52, 291-302.

Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature review (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.).(1994a). The handbook of research synthesis. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994b). Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 3-14). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994c). Potentials and limitations of research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 521-528). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincolin, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. (3rd eds). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Diab, N.M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38, 85-95.

Dicamilla, F. J., & Ant’on, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaboration discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 609-633.

Dinsmore, T. H. (2006). Principles, parameters, and SLA: A retrospective meta-analytic investigation into adult L2 learners’ access to Universal Grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 53-90). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S.W. (1988) peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119-149.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

**DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G.. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face. ELT Journal, 55, 263-272.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. London: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2006) Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In J. M.
Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 301-322). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ellis, N. C. (2000). Editorial statement. Language Learning, 50 (3), xi-xiv.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. NY: Oxford University Express.

Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 319-324.

Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.

Fanselow. J. (1987). Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in language teaching. New York: Longman.

Falvey, P. (1993). Towards a description of corporate revision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Birmingham, UK.

**Fei, H. (2006). Students’ perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction. CELEA Journal, 29(4), 48-52.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Association.

Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime. . .?) Journal of Second language writing, 13(1), 49-62.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose process and practice (2nd ed.). NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Association.

Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art- so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 893-904.

**Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (1), 67-86. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/fitze/default.html

Flinspach, S. (2001). Interpretive synthesis: A methodology for reviewing qualitative case study research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Chicago.

Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41, 19-37.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. F. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Com¬munication, 32, 365-387.

Ford, N., & Mansourian, Y. (2006). The invisible web: An empirical study of “cognitive invisibility”. Journal of documentation, 62(5), 584-596.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gere, A. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1978). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 2-16.

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Seneitivility. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goldschneider, J., & Dekeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “nature order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1-50.

Gravetter, E.J., & Wallnau, L. B. (1996). Statistics for the behaviorial sciences. (4th ed.). Los Angeles: West Publishing Company.

Greenhouse. J. B., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 383-398). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Gu, K. & Wang, T. (2004). Preliminary study on the effect of peer editing on writing apprehension. CELEA Journal, 27(6), 24-28.

Guba, E. G. & Lincon, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincon (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oks, CA: Sage.

**Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction inL2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.

Hairston, M.(1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.

Hall, J., Rosenthal, R., Tickle-Degen, L., & Mosteller, F. (1994). Hypotheses and problems in research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 17-28). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Halvorsen, K. T. (1994). The reporting format. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 425-438). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Hammersely, M. (1989). The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer, and the Chicago Tradition. London: Routledge.

Hammersely, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles and practice. London: Routlege.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241-276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-70.

Hedges, L. V. (1982a). Estimating effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 490-499.

Hedges, L. V. (1982b). Fitting categorical models to effect sizes from a series of experiments. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 119-137.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Quarterly, 8 (2), 7-12.

Hirsh, E.D. (1977). The philosophy of composition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

**Ho, M. & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.

Hodson, R. (2004). A meta-analysis of workplace ethnographies: Race, gender, and employee attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 33, 4-38.

Hong, F. (2006). Students’perceptions of peer response activities in English writing instruction. CELEA Journal, 29 (4), 48-52.

Hossler, D., & Scalese-Love, P. (1989). Grounded meta-analysis: A guide for research synthesis. Review of Higher Education, 13 (1), 1-28.

**Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.

* Huang, L. & Tang, C. (1997). A case study on using writing conferences and peer-group review in teaching English composition in senior high school. In J. Katchen, & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 263-282). Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co.

*Huang, M. (2004).The use of process writing and internet technology in a Taiwanese college English writing class: A focus on peer reviews. Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

***Huang, S. (1995). The efficacy of using writing groups to help students generate ideas for writing and revise drafts in an EFL university writing class. In Y. N. Leung (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 150-172). Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating
research finding across studies. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 32(2), 217-230.

Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing.
Cambridge Journal, 39, 83-101.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing :An introduction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-19). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Issac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, CA: EDITS Publisher.

**Jacobs, G., A., Curtis, G., Braine, G. & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(3), 307–317.

**Jiang, W. (2004) Peer review in ESL writing attitudes and cultural concerns. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(10), 3619.

Jeon, E. H. & Kaya, T. (2006) Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-212). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

*Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese Context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39.

Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G.., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91-132). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.

Kelvin, K. (2010). Investigating the perception of student teachers in Hong Kong towards peer-editing. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 53-59.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2000). Introduction. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

King, J. (1979). Measuring attitudes toward writing: The King construct scale. Paper
presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.

Kroll, B., & Vann, R. (1981). Exploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.

Kuhn, T., (1963). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lai, Y., & Chung, R. (2005) Effects of peer revision on Taiwanese senior high school students’ English writing. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 2(1), 63-96.

Langer, S., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.

Lantof, J. P., & Ahmed, M. K. (1989). Psycholinguistic perspectives on interlanguage variation: A Vygotskyan analysis. In S. Grass, C. Madden, D. Preston & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition volume II: Psycholinguistic issues (pp. 93-108). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Lantof, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex..

Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 175-181.

Leki, I. (1990a). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes.
CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-19.

Leki, I. (1990b). 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.

Leonard, S. A. (1917). English composition as a social problem. Boston: Houghton.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative Research in Education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

**Liang, M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45-64, Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/liang.pdf

Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

**Lin, C.H., & Tsai, P.L. (2008). Case Study on Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Revision in English Writing with Interaction of Feedback from Tutor, Peers, and On-line Consultants. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3568-3573). Chesapeake, VA: AACE Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/27798.

**Lin, J. Y. (2005). Synchronous and asynchronous conferencing: A comparison of two modes of online ESL peer response and their effects on student talk and subsequent text revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(7), 2548.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

**Liou, H.-C. Peng, Z.-Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514-525.

Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

**Liu, J. & R. Sadler (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227.

**Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives, 5(1), 17-29.

**Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995a) Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances,functions, and content, Language Learning, 45(4), 605-655.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995b). Student stances during peer response in writing. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Reading and writing: Theory into practice (pp. 118-132). SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore: RELC.

Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In R. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Edward Arnold, 413–468.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-227.

**Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.

**Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. L. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235-254.

Masgoret, A.-M, & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163.

Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and student’s preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403-415.

**Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769.

**Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and Learning, 27(3)
85-103.

**Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.

**Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of training peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.

** Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purpose, 27, 285-305.

Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students' communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.

* Mo, J. (2005). An exploratory study of conducting peer review among Chinese college students. CELEA Journal, 28(6), 43-48.

Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Mota de Cabrera. C. (2004). Teaching, Tutoring, and Revision: The Experiences of two freshmen ESL students in Rhetoric class. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4448.

Myer, G. (1986). Reality, consensus, and reform in the rhetoric of composition teaching. College English, 48, 154-171.

**Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-132.

Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (2006).Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture”. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 42-59). NY: Cambridge University Press.

** Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171-193.

**Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revis¬ing their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Norris, J. M.,& Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3-50). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

O’Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: teaching and learning. Cambridge Journals, 37, 1-28.

Ohta, A. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner- learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied linguistics, 6(2), 93-121.

Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating Coding Decisions. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139-162). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Pace, S. (2003). Understanding the flow experiences of web users, PhD thesis, Australian national University, Canberra.

Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of web users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1(3), 327-363.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury park, CA: Sage.

Paulus, T.(1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Lan¬guage Writing, 8, 265-289.

Pennington, M. (1993). Exploring the potential of word processing for non-native writers. Computers and the Humanities, 27 (3), 149-163.

Pennington, M.C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Implementing the writing process in Hong Kong Secondary schools: What the students’ response tells us. Perspectives Working Papers of the Department of English, City University, 8(1), 150-217.

Pica, T. (1994). Research negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527.

Radcliffe, R. (1972). Talk-write composition: A theoretical model proposing the use of speech to improve writing. Research in the teaching of English, 6, 187-199.

Ragin, C. C., Drass, K. A., & Davey, S. (2003). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis. Avail at www.Fsqua.Com (version 1.1). Tucson, Arizona: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.

Raimes, A. (1983). Anguish as a second language: remedies for composition teachers. In: Freedman, A., Pringle, I., Yalden, J. (Eds.), Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language. Longman (pp. 258-272), Essex, UK: Longman

Raimes, A. (1987). Instructor’s manual to accompany “Exploring through writing”. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.

Rosenthal, R. (1994).Parametrical measures of effect size. In In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978).Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 377-386.

Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Comparing effect sizes of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 500-504.

Rothschild, D., & Klingenberg, F. (1990). Self and peer evaluation of writing in the intensive ESL class¬room. TESL Canada Journal, 8(1), 52-65.

Rusell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sandelowski, M. (2006). “Meta-jeopardy” The Crisis of representation in qualitative metasynthesis. Nursing Outlook, 54, 10-16.

**Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applies Psychology, 62, 529-540.

Schmid, L. M. (1999). The effects of peer response on essay drafts. Unpublished master's thesis, Califor¬nia State University, Sacramento.

**Sengupta, S. (1998a). From text revision to text improvement: a story of secondary school composition. RELC Journal, 29 (1), 110-137.

**Sengupta, S.(1998b). Peer evaluation: `I am not the teacher'. ELT Journal, 52 (1), 19-28.

**Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97-113.

**Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning, 15(1), 103-134.

Shadish,W. R. & Haddock, C.K. (1994). Combining Estimates of Effect Size. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261-281). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL research and its implication. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 657-677.

*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 from http://www.editlib.org/p/26023.

Sommer, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.

**Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-234.

Stock, W. A. (1994). Systematic Coding for research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 125-138). NY: Rusell Sage Foundation.

Strauss, A,.& Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and techniques (2nd eds). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview, In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sullivan, N. (1993). Teaching writing on a computer network. TESOL Journal, 3(1), 34-35.

**Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491-501.

Swaffar, J., Romano, S. & Arens, K. (1998). Language learning online: Theory and practice in ESL and L2 computer classroom. Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensibe output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Taylor, A., Stevens, J. R. & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L.Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213-244). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

**Tang, G.M., Tithecott, J.(1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 16 (2), 20–38.

T’ellez, K., & Waxman, H.C. (2006). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on effective teaching practices for English language learners. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279-298). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279-298). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tse, S. K. (1993). The Composing Process of Hong Kong Children in Primary Schools. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

**Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

**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.

van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

van Lier, L. (2004). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

*Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.

**Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.

Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23-41). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

**Wang, M. (2004). A study on online peer feedback. English Teaching & Learning, 29(2), 63-77.

** Wang, S. (2005). Peer review: a way to choose. CELEA Journal, 28(5), 56-65.

**Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451-468.

Ware, P. D. & Warschauer, M.(2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 105-122). NY: Cambridge University Press.

**Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.

Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58.

Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning, 14(1), 3-8. Retrieved from http//llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/commentary.pdf

** Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.

*Wei, C. L. (1996). The Effects of peer reviews on EFL learners’ writing quality and quanity. Proceedings of Symposium on NSC Projects, 11.1-11.15.

Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22, 1-22.

Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. NY: McGraw Hill.

*Wong, H. & Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness, 15(4), 283-300.

**Wu, W. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Language and Literature, 3, 125-139.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-l02.

Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.

**Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.

Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 321-326.

**Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing the impact of peer revision on English writing of tertiary EFL learners. CELEA Journal, 31(2), 47-54.

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12 (4), 492–528.

Zoellner, R. (1969). Talk-write: A behavioral pedagogy for composition. College English, 30, 267-320.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：942（臺灣：931，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2196945 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68006316
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上