大學生寫作能力調查之研究：以國內三所大學為樣本

An investigative study on the writing skills of university students: A sampling was taken from 3 local universities.

陳毓欣(YU-HSIN CHEN)

指導教授 ： 馬銘浩

淡江大學/文學院/中國文學系博士班/博士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2016.00570

摘要

本研究以兩篇短文的寫作測驗，針對國內大學生進行本國語文寫作能力調查，以期了解大學生在修習大一國文或語文能力表達相關課程之後，其本國語文寫作的學習成就表現。
本研究為維持測驗之信、效度，故採用2011年「臺灣學生學習成就評量資料庫」國語文高中及高職非選擇題之試題（含評論短文一篇、創作短文一篇）及評分規準，作為測驗及閱卷工具，並將本次測驗與2011年「臺灣學生學習成就評量資料庫」國語文高中及高職的測驗結果，進行比較分析，以了解大學生與高中及高職生寫作能力的差異。
本研究採用描述性統計、相關、T檢定，以及變異數分析（ANOVA）等分析方法，分析：
1、整體受測者所呈現的評論短文及創作短文學習成就；
2、男生與女生受測者的成就差異；
3、公私立學校受測者的成就差異；
4、不同屬性學院受測者的成就差異；
5、高中生與大學生寫作能力表現的比較；
6、受測者用字情況(含總字數、相異字數、常用與非常用字數、標點符號種類)與學習成就的關係；
7、受測者閱讀習慣與寫作能力表現的關係；
8、受測者寫作學習喜好與寫作成就的關係。
研究結果發現：
1、在評論短文方面，九成以上學生表現已達一般水準（含）以上；在創作短文方面，則有七成以上學生表現達一般水準（含）以上。
2、分析男女生在評論短文與創作短文的表現，女生均優於男生。
3、分析公私立學校學生的寫作能力表現，兩者並無顯著差異。
4、分析不同屬性學院學生的寫作能力表現，兩者並無顯著差異。
5、分析大學生與高中及高職學生的寫作能力表現，在評論短文方面，大學生優於高中生，高中生優於高職生；在創作短文方面，高中生優於高職生，而大學生與高中生無顯著差異。
6、分析大學生用字情況與寫作學習成就表現之關係，在評論短文方面，總字數、相異字數、常用字數、非常用字數愈多者，其寫作能力愈好；在創作短文方面，總字數、相異字數、常用字數、非常用字數、標點符號種類愈多者，其寫作能力愈好。
7、閱讀習慣與寫作學習成就相關性的為顯著的，含：閱讀態度、閱讀活動頻率、運用閱讀理解策略。
8、寫作學習喜好與寫作能力表現，呈現正相關。
本研究希冀透過評量的觀點，提供各大專院校之語文教育課程規劃者、教材編寫與教學的實際參與者，作為日後之教學規劃及評量設計的參考。

關鍵字

寫作評量 ； 相異字數 ； 大一國文 ； 語文能力表達 ； 作文

並列摘要

The research focused on the writing skills of students after completing the first year of Chinese literature class. The research relied on 2 tests to determine students’ writing proficiency.
To guarantee reliability and validity, 2 essay items taken from the 2011(TASA) Taiwan Assessment of students Achievement database, and it’s scoring system were used to gauge differences between high school and college students.( High school students included vocational high school students). Students had to comment on a written statement, and write an essay on a topic sentence.

This study used descriptive statistics, correlation, t-test and ANOVA for analysis.
1.The performance of the total number of students sampled on the 2 essay items was analyzed.
2.Male and female achievements were analyzed to find any difference.
3.Public and private schools achievements were analyzed to find any difference.
4.Different colleges within the university were analyzed to find any difference.
5.The writing proficiency between high school and college students was compared.
6.The college students’ proficiency was determined by the total number of words, variety of terminology, the frequency or non-frequency of commonly used words and punctuation.
7. The relationship between study habits and writing proficiency.
8. The relationship between enjoyment of writing and writing proficiency.

Result findings:
1.On the commentary essay, 90% of the students in the sample performed better than the TASA average. On the written essay, 70% of the students in the sample performed better than the TASA average.
2.Females scored higher on the 2 TEST items than males.
3.There were no differences in test results between private and public schools.
4.There were no differences in test results among different colleges within the university.
5.On the commentary test, college students performed better than the high school students, and the high school students performed better than the vocational high school students. On the written essay, high school students performed better than the vocational high school students , but there was no significant difference between high school and college students.
6.On the commentary test, the college students’ writing proficiency was directly correlated to the total number of words, variety of terminology, and the frequency or non-frequency of commonly used words. On the written essay test, writing proficiency was directly correlated with the total number of words, variety of terminology, the frequency or non-frequency of commonly used words and punctuation.
7.Study habits including attitude,frequency of study and reading strategy were significantly correlated with writing proficiency.
8.The enjoyment of writing was directly correlated with writing proficiency.

It is hoped that this study will help colleges to better plan lessons, compile materials and teach.

並列關鍵字

Writing evaluation ； variety of terminology ； freshmen Chinese literature class ； language skills performance ； essay

參考文獻

王開府、陳麗桂主編2006《國文作文教學的理論與實務》，臺北市：心理出版社，年1月初刷。

單文經主編2004《課程與教學新論》，臺北市：心理出版社，初版一刷。

湯廷池1979《國語語法研究論集》，臺北市：臺灣學生書局。

趙修霈、張書豪2013《大學生的實用寫作書》，臺北市：臺灣學生書局。

王靖婷〈大學國文教學面面觀：相關研究之回顧與展望〉，《通識學刊：理論與實務》，一卷四期，2009年1月。