:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:部落格式檔案評量對台灣高中生英文寫作的效益研究
作者:丁鴻儒
作者(外文):Hung-Ju Ting
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
指導教授:張玉玲 博士
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:部落格式寫作檔案評量宏觀寫作評量微觀寫作評量blog-based writingportfolio assessmentmacro assessmentmicro assessment
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:23
論文名稱 : 部落格式檔案評量對台灣高中生英文寫作的效益研究
校所組別 : 國立高雄師範大學英語學系博士班
畢業時間 : 一百零二學年度第二學期
指導教授 : 張玉玲博士
研 究 生 : 丁鴻儒
論文摘要
本研究旨在探討部落格式檔案評量對台灣高中生英文寫作表現的效益研究。就英文寫作表現而言,本研究分析、比較高中二年級學生於前、後測英文寫作在宏觀及微觀寫作技巧上的表現。就英文寫作態度而言,本研究特別對於受試學生在英文寫作表現、教師在宏觀寫作技巧的評量、教師在微觀寫作技巧的評量、三種英文作文評量方式、以及 部落格寫作平台五個方面進行分析。本研究以台北市某一所私立高中六十五位普通科二年級學生為研究對象。參與研究的學生隨機分為實驗組及控制組,兩組學生的英文程根據其入學條件及平時課業表現並無顯著差異。在資料收集及分析方面,研究者針對受試學生的英文寫作表現及態度問卷和實驗組對部落格寫作平台問卷進行質化及量化分析。在英文寫作表現方面,研究者針對英文寫作前、後測成績在整體及宏觀寫作技巧(寫作內容)以及微觀寫作技巧之英文寫作表現 (組織、文法、字彙,標點符號),分別作量化及質化的比較及分析。本研究的主要發現摘述如下:
一、在實驗教學後,實驗組及控制組在英文寫作表現上均有顯著進步。然而從平均數來看,實驗組在英文寫作後測上,相較於控制組表現出顯著差異,特別是在寫作內容、組織、和文法方面。
二、在實驗教學後,實驗組及控制組在英文寫作態度上無顯著差異。然而實驗組及控制組兩組學生在對7-14題的反應,平均得分都在3.94以上,這說明在實驗教學後,無論是實驗組或是控制組,對於自我寫作能力的回應是正面的。例如在提升英文能力方面及擴展寫作內容方面,對實驗組和控制組而言都是肯定的。
三、在實驗教學後,實驗組及控制組對於教師評量在宏觀寫作技巧方面的看法有顯著的差異。此外,從平均數來看實驗組在後測的表現比控制組有較高的平均分數。這顯示在實驗教學後,實驗組比控制組在教師評量方面有更正向的反應。具體來說,在宏觀寫作技巧方面,實驗組學生特別期待看到老師的英文寫作提示,包括 (一) 內容是否完整、(二) 內容是否一致,(三) 內容是否適當,以及(四) 與同學分享自己的作文。
四、在實驗教學後,實驗組及控制組對於教師評量在微觀寫作技巧方面的看法有顯著的差異。在微觀寫作技巧方面,實驗組學生特別期待得到老師的英文寫作提示,包括(一) 組織是否完整, (二) 結構是否有誤,(三) 文法是否正確,(四) 字彙是否合適,以及(五) 標點符號及用字大小寫是否無誤。
五、在實驗教學後,實驗組及控制組對於同儕互評及自我評量的看法無顯著差異。
六、實驗組對於部落格寫作平台教學設計,一般而言是很贊同的。具體而言,實驗組學生認為部落格寫作平台可增加他們觀摩同儕優秀作品及教師對同學作品評量的機會,這對於幫助他們分析同儕作品的優缺點有相當的助益。而且,部落格寫作平台讓他們修改自己的作品方便又容易。此外,線上字典、英文字詞搭配查詢系統以及自我批改功能超連結對於寫作過程以及對於最初作品的優缺點自我分析相當重要。
根據上述研究發現,本研究提供幾項英文寫作教學及評量上的建議。首先,台灣英文寫作教學可融入部落格線上寫作系統,以鼓勵學生進行查詢方便又有趣的寫作歷程。其次、對於學生作品的評量,教師可採用兩段式提示方式,先做間接錯誤提示,鼓勵學生自我發現錯誤而後更正,之後再做直接錯誤更正。此外、針對學生程度之不同,教師可適時運用同儕評量和學生自我評量,加強學生對於自我作品改善的敏銳度。此外,英文作文教學應運用現代科技的輔助,幫助學生做自我作品品質分析,增強自我寫作能力,畢竟能夠自我學習才是進步的最大動力。
Abstract
This study aimed at exploring the effect of blog-based portfolio assessment project (PAP) on the writing performance for Taiwanese senior high school students. With regard to English writing performance, the study analyzed and compared tenth graders’ writing performance in respect of macro and micro writing skills before and after PAP. As for English learning responses, the study analyzed the subjects’ responses to (a) English writing competence, (b) the teacher’s assessment in macro skills, (c) the teacher’s assessment in micro skills, (d) the three types of English writing assessments, and (e) English writing instruction. The 65 subjects in the study came from a private senior high school in Taipei, and they were divided into the experimental and the controlled group by class. The subjects were similar in their English proficient level because of the conditions of entrance to the school and their overall academic performance in previous semesters. In data collection and analysis, the EG and the CG subjects’ responses to the questionnaire on the student responses to PAP and to the questionnaire on the student responses to the instructional design of the blog–based platform were analyzed and compared qualitatively. For English writing performances, the mean scores of the pretests and the post-tests in terms of macro skills (content) and micro skills (organizations, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) were compared quantitatively. Based on the data analyses, the findings of the study are summarized as follows:
1. Both the EG and the CG subjects made a progress in their writing performance after the PAP. But there is significance difference for the EG’s and the CG’s writing performance in the post-test. According to the increased mean score, the EG performed significantly better than the CG in terms of content, organization, and grammar.
2. There is no significance for the EG and the CG in the responses to English writing after the PAP. The mean scores for the EG’s and the CG’s responses to Items 7 to 14 are more than 3.94, which means either the EG or the CG held positive responses to the effect of the PAP on their English writing performance, such as increasing their English competence, and enriching the writing content.
3. There are six significant differences in the EG’s and the CG’s responses to the teacher’s assessment in terms of macro writing skills after the study. To be more specific in the respect of macro writing skills, the EG subjects expressed that they looked forward to reading the teachers’ feedback in a rank: (a) the coherence of content, (b) good organization of structure, (c) the sufficiency of the content, (d) sharing their writing with peers, (e) the structure of the writing, and (f) errors of structure
4. There are three significant difference in the EG’s and the CG’s responses to the teacher’s assessment in terms of micro writing skills after the study. In the respect of micro skills, the EG subjects showed that they wanted to get the teacher’s comment in a rank: (a) grammar, (b) vocabulary, and (c) mechanics of their written works.
5. There is no significant difference for the EG’s and the CG’s responses to the peer assessment and self-assessment.
6. The EG subjects’ responses to the instructional design of the blog-based platform was affirmative. To be specific, they expressed that the blog-based platform allowed them a lot of chances to observe excellent peer works and the teacher’s assessment of other peers’ writing, which is beneficial for them to analyze the strengths and weakness of peer works. In addition, blog-based platform allows them to modify their written works easily and conveniently. Furthermore, online dictionary, concordancer, and hyperlink to immediate writing assessment websites are important to their writing process and their initial self-assessment of their first draft.
Based on the study findings, some pedagogical implications for English writing instructions and assessment are provided. First, English writing instruction in Taiwan is suggested incorporating blog platforms to encourage the student to do the convenient and pleasant writing. Next, the teacher may take a two-step assessment of student written works, implicit corrective feedback in the first draft, and explicit corrective feedback in the second. This is to encourage the student to find out the errors, and do self-examination of their errors. On the other hand, the teacher can include peer assessment and self-assessment in the writing assessment in accordance with the student English writing proficient level. By doing so, the students can learn to increase their sensibility of self-improving of their works. Finally, utilizing modern technology in the writing instruction can help the student to do effective self-assessment, increasing their capability of self-examination, which is a very important mean to help students develop successful writing.
REFERENCES

Adhitya, Y. (2013). Using a four-phase technique to improve the students’ imaginative writing skills. Retrieve July, 20, 2013 from http://eprints.uns.ac.id/4585/
Al-Aayed, B. (2009). Blog assisted language learning: The use of blog in language learning in Saudi schools. Retrieve March, 21, 2010 from http://libback.uqu.edu.sa/hipres/ABS/ind8026.pdf
Arslan, R., & Şahin-kizil, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183-197.
Aydin, S. (2010). EFL writers’ perceptions of portfolio keeping. Assessing Writing, 15, 194-203.
Backman, L. F., & Palmer, A. F. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baturay, M. T., & Daloğlu, A. (2010). E-portfolio assessment in an online language course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 413-428.
Bhattacharya , A., & Chauhan, K. (2010). Augmenting learner autonomy through blogging. ELT Journal 64(4), 376-384.
Beretier, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-36.
Blood, R. (2000). Weblogs: A history and perspective. In Editors of Perseus Publishing (Eds.). We’ve got blog: how weblogs are changing culture (pp. 7-16). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18 (5), 529-49.
Bouton, K., & Tutty, G. (1975). The effect of peer-evaluated student compositions on writing improvement. The English Record, 3, 64-69.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman.
Brown, H. D.. (2001). Teaching by principle. New York: Longman.
Brown, H., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. San Francisco: San Francisco State University.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
Campbell, A. (2003). Weblogs for use with ELS classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(2). Retrieved March, 23, 2013, from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-weblog.html
Campbell, A.. (2005). Weblog application for EFL/ESL classroom blogging: A comparative review. TESL-EJ, 9, Retrieved March, 16, 2010 from
http://tesl-ej.org/ej35/m1.html
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carson, J. (1990). Reading-writing connections: toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing (pp. 88-101). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Y. J., Wu, C. T., & Ku, H. Y. (2005). A study on building English teaching and learning e-portfolios in junior high school in Taiwan. The Proceedings of 2004 International Conference on English Language Assessment and Instruction (pp. 61-82). Taipei: Crane.
Chao, T. C. (2000). Authentic assessment in the EFL school context: An MI-based model. The Proceedings of the 17th Conference on English Teaching and Learning (pp. 486-496). Taipei: The Crane.
Chen, J. L. (2010). Perspectives on English writing instruction in senior high schools in Taiwan: attitudes, the current situation, and needs. Unpublished Master Thesis. Tainan: Leader University.
Chen, P. J. (2009). A study on the effectiveness of a blog-integrated EFL college writing course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Chen, Y. M. (2002). The problems of university EFL writing. Korea TESOL Journal 5, (Fall/Winter 2002).
Cheng, H. W. (2012).Utilizing automated writing evaluation software in correcting high school students' compositions. Unpublished Master Thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Cheong, L. K. (1994). Using annotation in a process approach to writing in a Hong Kong classroom. TESL Reporter, 27(2), 63–73.
Chou, H. C. (2009). Effects of weblog-based writing instruction on English writing performance of vocational high school students. Unpublished Master Thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chueh, K. H. (2008). An analysis of past reference marking in Taiwan senior high school students' English compositions. Unpublished Master Thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Chung, C. (2013). Non-English-majors’ writing performance and perceptions of the use of MY Access in EFL writing classes. Unpublished Master Thesis. Taichung: Providence University.
Cohen, D. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A., & Wu, M. (1993). Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 45-56.
Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18-36.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-, and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350.
Ducate, L. C. & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.
Edelenbos, P., & Kubanek-German, A. (2004). Teacher’s assessment: The concept of
‘diagnostic competence’. Language Testing, 21(3), 259-283.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289-300
Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
Falchikov, N., & Boud, B. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
Farmer, J. (2004). Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of inquiry in online learning environments. Paper presented at the 21th ASCILITE conference. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://incsub.org/blog/index.php?p=3
Fathman, K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freedle, R. O. (1985). Achieving cognitive synthesis of separate language skills. Implications for improving literacy. In C. N. Hedley & A.N. Baratta (Eds.), Context of reading (pp. 107-126). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fu, C. Y. (2007). The study of the attitude and improvements on the basic competency test for junior high school students for students, parents and educators. Unpublished Master Thesis. Kaohsiung: National Sun Yat-sen University.new window
Gaies, S. J. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14 (1), 53-60.
Ghabool, N., Mariadass, M., & Hossein, S. (2012). Investigating Malaysian ESL students' writing problems on conventions, punctuation, and language use at secondary school level. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(3), 130-143.
Grabe. W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
Griffee, D. T. (1995). A longitudinal study of student feedback: self-assessment, course evaluation and teacher evaluation. Longman: Birmingham, Alabama.
Hassmén, P., Sams, M.R., & Hunt, D.P. (1996). Self-assessment responding and testing methods: effects on performers and observers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 1091–1104.
Hancock, C.R. (1994). Teaching, testing, and assessing: making the connection. Northeast conference reports. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Harlen, W., & James, M. (2006). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379.
Harlen, W., & Gardner, J. (2010). Assessment to support learning. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L. Hayward, G. Strobrt, & M. Montgomery. (Eds.) Developing teacher’s assessment. Berkshire: the McGraw-hill companies.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (2001). Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1997). TOEFL 2000-writing composition community, and assessment. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Harrington, T. F. (1995). Assessment of ability. Greensboro, NC: ERIC, Clearinghouse on Counseling and student services.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic assessment: A handbook for educators. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.) Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and The National Conference on Research in English.
Horowitz, D. (1986). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 90–110.
Huang, C. C. (1999). The effects of vocabulary knowledge and prior knowledge on reading comprehension of EFL students in Taiwan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Athens, OH: Ohio University.
Huang, C. C. (2004). A comparison of vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge and reading comprehension between senior high and vocational high school students. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 35(1), 55-84.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hyland, K. (1998). The impact of teacher-written feedback on individual writers. Journal of second language writing, 7(3), 255-86.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge press.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Karegianes, M. L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, S. W. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 203-207.
Kaplan, R. (1967). Contrastive rhetorical and the teaching of composition. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kelley, M. J. (2008). The impact of weblogs on the affective states and academic writing of L2 undergraduates. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia.
Kou, C. H. (2004). A survey of the academic preparedness of Taiwanese high school English teachers for the teaching of writing. Unpublished Master Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Lamy, N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lan. M. H. (2008). Effects of portfolio assessments on English writing attitudes and performances of technical college students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Lan. M. H. (2009). A comparison of effects of blog-based and paper-based portfolios on writing attitudes and performances. Proceedings of 26th Conference of English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 491-508). Department of Applied English, Min Chuan University, Taiwan, Taipei: Crane.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 57–68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes. Foreign Language Annuls, 24, 203-218.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: a guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. C, & Wang. Y. C. (2008). An exploration to senior high school students’ writing performance in terms of Advanced Subjects Test (從大學指考探討高中生英文寫作能力的問題). Retrieved November 27, 2011, from http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-17115
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Pihlajamaki, H., & Kotkas, T. ( 2006). Self-, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essays. Active Learning in higher education, 7(1), 51-62.
Liu, E., Lin, S., & Yuan, S. (2002). Alternatives to instructor assessment: A case study of comparing self and peer assessment with instructor assessment under networked innovative assessment procedures. International Journal of Instructor Media, 29(4), 395-404.
Liu, Y. H. (2008). A discourse analysis of adverbial participle clauses in Taiwanese senior high students' writing. Unpublished Master Thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Longhurst, N., & Norton, L. S. (1997). Self-assessment in coursework essays. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 319-330.
Lynch, B. (2003). Language testing and assessment. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magin, D., & Helmore, P. (2001). Peer and teacher’s assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education Volume 26(3), 287-298.
McLaughlin, R. (1987). Reading in a second language: Studies with adult and child learners. In S. R. Goldman & H. T. Trueba (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second language (pp. 57-70). Norwood, N J: Ablex.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: challenges for research. Language Testing, 18, 333-50.
Miceli, T., Murray, S., & Kennedy, C. (2010). Using an L2 blog to enhance learners’ participation and sense of community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 321–341.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38, 185-199.
Montgomery, T., & Morton, B. (1994). Writing, reflecting and assessing in the English classroom: The role of the portfolio in knowledge construction. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Moras, S. (2001). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and the Internet. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/CALL.html
Moya, S., & O’Malley, M. (1994). A portfolio assessment model for ESL. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, 13–36.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Vocabulary learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nezakatgoo, B. (2011). The effects of portfolio assessment on writing of EFL students. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 231-241.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
O‘Malley, J. M., & Pierce L.V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical Approaches for teachers. London: Longman University Press.
Paulson, F. L., Meyer, C. A., & Paulson, P.R. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? In J. Noblitt (Ed.), Students portfolios: A collection of articles (pp. 83-88). Arlington Height, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Petersen, S.A., Divitini, M., & Chabert, G. (2008). Identity, sense of community and connectedness in a community of mobile language learners. ReCALL, 20(3), 361–379.
Peyton, J., & Reed, L. (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative English speakers: A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 1990.
Pinkman, K. (2005). Using blogs in the foreign language classroom: encouraging learner independence. The JALT CALL Journal, 1(1), 12–24.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
Pollari, P. (2000). “This is my portfolio”: Portfolios in upper secondary school English studies (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED450415).
Raimes, A. (1983). Technique in teaching writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18, 429-62.
Reid, J. M. (1984). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-111.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rolliston, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Ross, S. (2005). The impact of assessment method on foreign language proficiency growth. Applied Linguistics, 26, 317-342.
Savignon, S. J., & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: texts and strategies. The CALICO Journal 21(2), 265-290.
Scharf, D., Elliot, N., Huey, H., Briller, V., & Joshi, J. (2007). Direct Assessment of Information Literacy using Writing Portfolios. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 462-477.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Development, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL QUARTERLY, 27(4), 665-677.
Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 251-266). New York: Hodder Arnold.
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Stanley, G. (2005). Blogging for ELT. The BBC and British Council Teaching English. Retrieved March 23, 2013, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/blogging-elt
Staton, J. (1983). Dialogue journals: A new tool for teaching communication. ERIC/ELL News Bulletin, 6, 1-6.
Stiler, G. (2003). Blogging and blogspots: An alternative format for encouraging reflective practice among preservice teachers. Education, 123(4), 789.
Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88–103.
Sun, Y. C. (2010). Extensive writing in foreign‐language classrooms: A blogging approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 327-339.
Taras, D. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605-614.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and culture-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38-67.
Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Ting, H. (2010). A study on the performance of Taiwan senior high school students’ short essay writing. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on English teaching and learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 362-378). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer-assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy., & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standard (pp. 55–87). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Ward, J. M. (2004) Blog assisted language learning (BALL): Push button publishing for the pupils, TEFL Web Journal 3(1). Retrieved on February10, 2010, from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_26/push%20button%20publishing%20ward%202004.pdf
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Tokyo: Logos International.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. An International Journal, 3, 22–36.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2005). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weasenforth, D., Biesenbach-Lucas, S., & Memoni, C. (2002). Realizing constructivist objectives through collaborative technologies: Threaded discussion. Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 58-86.
Weaver, M. E. (1995). Using peer response in the classroom: Students' perspectives. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 12, 31-37.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J.D. (2000). Identity and reliability in portfolio assessment. In B. Sunstein & J. Lovell (Eds.). The portfolio standard (pp. 135-148). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wu, H. K. (2009). The Urban-rural Divide Comparative Study Conferring the Causes of Difference in the Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students —A School in Taipei City and B School in Kinmen as Samples. Unpublished Master Thesis. Taipei: Minchuang University.
Wu, M. L. (2003). SPSS statistical Analysis Applications and Practice— Questionnaire Analysis and Applicative Statistics. Taipei: Acore Digital Technology.
Yang, I. L. (2008). My opinion on English writing instruction in senior high school: from English writing Test of JCEE (高中英文寫作教學之我見-從大學入學考試英作測驗談起). Retrieve June 10, 2013, from
http://english.tyhs.edu.tw/epaper/epaper39/teach_39.pdf
Yu, L. W. (2011). A comparative error analysis of online English writing from college students in Japan and Taiwan. Unpublished Master Thesis. Taipei: Taipei Municipal University of Education.
Yule, G. (2002). Pragmatic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (2) 195-209.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 165-187.
Zhang, S. (2009). Has portfolio assessment become common practice in EFL classrooms? Empirical studies from China. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 98–118.
Zhuang, L.X. (2011). Improving Taiwanese students’ English writing in verbs, sentences and compositions by using corpus-derived materials. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Hsinch: Nationalal Tsin Hwa University.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE