- 學位論文
利用協同寫作做為動態評量的方法:探討大學生議論文寫作過程和結果
Collaborative Writing as Dynamic Assessment: Effects on Writing Process and Product of College Students’ Argumentative Writing
摘要
近年來，協同寫作常被視為一種有效的團體合作學習方式以及動態評量的工具(例: Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009)。過去雖然已有許多學者研究過協同寫作過程的特質和結果的品質(例: Dale, 1994; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009)，但是針對協同寫作之結果品質分析的部份，多數偏重於使用T-unit為分析單位的句構分析(包含文章的流暢度、複雜度和正確度)來作為評量標準(例: Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009)。目前尚無研究使用論述結構分析單位來分析協同寫作方式所產出的議論文品質。鑒於議論文論述結構安排的適當性亦是做為評量寫作成品品質的重要依據，本研究以社會文化觀點出發，重新檢視協同寫作的過程和其所產出的文章品質(尤以分析議論文論述結構為主)。研究對象為八對(共十六位)來自台灣某所大學的大二英文系學生。研究工具包括：一)兩次協同寫作題目。分別以隔週方式施測；第一週為獨立寫作，亦即學生必須根據研究者所指定的寫作題目獨立完成一篇議論文，第二週則為協同寫作，學生得以兩人一組之方式，合力完成一篇由研究者所指定題目的議論文。二)協同寫作過程中討論對話。其討論過程被錄製成音檔，再轉成逐字稿分析。針對寫作成品分析方面，本研究採用Toulmin的「論述模型」(1985)做為分析受試者所撰寫的議論文(包含獨立寫作和協同寫作)結構的依據。在協同寫作對談過過程方面，則使用Mercer的「三種對談類型」(Mercer, 2004)，包括「爭辯式談話」、「累積式談話」以及「探究式談話」，做為資料編碼的依據。此外，學生對談的過程也同時被切為段落並且編入七個重點主題。大致上來說，量化的結果顯示協同寫作可幫助學生在議論文中產出較多的高層次論述元素(包括反方論述以及反證論述元素)。然而，質化分析的結果則進一步發現協同寫作產出較高層次的重要前提為組員(以兩位組員為協同寫作之單位)需在討論「構思」和「組織」兩項談話主題的過程中，涉入「探究式談話」，亦或，在協同寫作中的支配者具備較多論述修辭技巧的知識才能產出高層次論述元素。再者，由分析協同寫作對談過程中的七個重點主題(「構思」、「語言相關片斷」、「組織」、「時間考量」、「朗讀/重新朗讀」、「離題」和「感受」)之間的關係亦顯示協同寫作能多方面取得關於學生寫作問題的診斷訊息。最後，此研究所產生的相關貢獻和建議等，也在文中有所討論。
並列摘要
Recently, collaborative writing has been viewed as an effective form of group-based learning as well as an instrument for dynamic assessment (e.g., Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). A number of studies have been conducted to examine the nature of collaborative writing processes and the quality of the co-constructed texts (e.g., Dale, 1994; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). However, most studies adopted measurement indicators of fluency, complexity, and accuracy based on T-units and clauses counts to assess the quality of pair writers’ argumentative writing products (e.g., Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2009). Little attention has been paid to the assessment of the quality of written argumentation produced by pair writers. Based on the assumption that a good argumentative essay is underpinned by a well structured form that is derived from a good talk, this study was conducted to reexamine the quality of pair writers’ writing processes and products as well as the relationship between them from a sociocultural perspective. Participants were eight pairs (sixteen student writers) of sophomore English majors in Taiwan. Data sources consisted of: 1) both individual and collaborative written texts. They were required to compose one argumentative essay individually (in the first week), and one collaboratively (in the second week), in response to two topics given by the researcher. 2) the audio-recordings of the pair writers’ collaboration processes. The written texts were coded via Toulmin’s model (1985), and the audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded into themes which indicated the foci of the pairs’ writing processes. Additionally, to further investigate the relationship between talk quality and text quality, discourse analysis was used to analyze how pair writers construct the contextual foundation of their talks. Particularly, Mercer’s three types of talks (2004) derived from the sociocultural theory were used to categorize pair discussions into disputational, cumulative, and exploratory talks. Although the quantitative comparison between individual and pair writers’ argument structures showed that pairs generally produced more counterargument and rebuttal argument elements, only pairs who engaged in exploratory talks specifically during the foci of ‘Generating Ideas’ and ‘Structure’ would produce these two types of higher-order thinking elements in the written texts. Moreover, the internal dynamics of the collaborative writers also played a critical role that influenced the pairs’ argument structures. The analysis of the relationship amongst the seven foci (i.e., Generating Ideas, Language-Related Episodes, Structure, Concerning Time, Read / Reread, Off-Topic, and Feelings) of the writing processes revealed that collaborative writing helped retrieve diagnostic information in multiple aspects. Finally, implications for the use of collaborative writing as classroom assessment were discussed.