同步線上同儕互評：以一門大學英語寫作課為例

Peer Revision via a Synchronous CMC Mode in an English Writing Course

蕭志億(Chih-Yi Hsiao)

指導教授 ： 張靜芬

國立交通大學/人文社會學院/英語教學研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2009.00688

摘要

近年來由於過程寫作法的發展，同儕互評 (peer revision) 成為第二語言寫作中不可或缺的角色之ㄧ。而由於網路和電腦科技的普及，線上同儕互評彌補了第二語言寫作課程中課堂時間不足的缺點。儘管已有許多研究探討面對面和線上同儕互評，但很少研究探討學生對於線上同儕互評的感受。另外，有部分文獻探討線上互動中所出現社交訊息 (social cues) 的類型及功能，但很少研究檢視社交訊息在線上同儕互評中扮演的功能。本研究以台灣北部一所國立大學非英語系的大學生為對象，探討學生在為期一學期英語寫作課程中，進行同步線上同儕互評所使用的評論類型、社交訊息在同步線上同儕互評中的功能、以及學生對於同步線上同儕互評的感受。本研究資料取擷自線上對話MSN記錄、寫作草稿、訪談、問卷調查表，以及課程文件(如課程大綱、上課投影片和講義)。MSN對話記錄先依據 de Guerrero和Villamil (1994) 所提出的對話模式分成三種類型：與主題相關、相關主題以及與主題無關。與主題相關的對話內容再依據Liu和Sadler (2003) 所提出之分析表格分析出不同類型的評語。最後，社交訊息依據 Henri (1992) 所提出之社交訊息分析模式來探討其在同步線上同儕互評中的功能。
本研究結果發現學生給予的意見大多是關於單字或句子方面的評論和正確答案。社交訊息幫助學生進行同步線上同儕互評，並使得線上文字溝通變得更加生動。學生們認為同步線上同儕互評可幫助他們培養友誼，並幫助他們獨立自主學習。此外，由於學生對MSN很熟悉且其對話紀錄可當作修正參考等優點，使得MSN對於同步線上同儕互評的進行有助益。然而，本結果亦發現同步線上同儕互評產生一些缺點，例如同學在進行線上討論時會不專心，並因考慮同儕自尊問題而保留該給的意見。另外，打字過於麻煩會使學生不想深入討論過於複雜的問題。最後，在同步線上同儕互評中會發生同儕失約的問題。
本研究結果提供四個在英語教學實務上的應用。首先，MSN對話紀錄可幫助老師了解同學的評語，也幫助學生複習同步線上同儕互評時所提及之問題以方便修改文章。第二，進行同步線上同儕互評時，老師可建議學生把同學的文章和評語列印下來，以方便進行討論。或可使用專業之線上寫作／互評系統，使得同步線上同儕互評的進行更加順暢。第三，老師應要求學生確實按照約定時間進行同步線上同儕互評。最後，老師可先示範同步線上同儕互評的活動，以教導學生如何有效地進行同步線上同儕互評。

關鍵字

同步線上同儕互評 ； 社交訊息 ； 同步線上同儕互評的感受 ； 過程寫作法

並列摘要

With the development of the process writing approach, peer revision has become an essential activity in second language (L2) writing. With the popularity of networked computers in education, peer revision via computer-mediated communication (CMC) may compensate for the disadvantage of insufficient time for instruction. A plethora of studies have examined peer revision via face-to-face and online modes. However, little research has explored students’ perceptions of peer revision via CMC. Furthermore, previous studies have investigated the categories and functions of social cues in online communication, but few studies have been done to explore functions of social cues especially in online peer revision. The study was conducted in an 18-week EFL writing course at a public university in Northern Taiwan. The study attempted to investigate comment patterns generated from synchronous online peer revision, functions of social cues in online peer revision, and students’ perceptions of online peer revision. Data were collected from a questionnaire, MSN logs, writing drafts, an interview, and course documents (a course syllabus, slides, and handouts). Online logs were first categorized into three types of episodes: on-, about, and off-task (de Guerrero & Villamil, 1994). On-task episodes were further analyzed based on Liu and Sadlers’ (2003) analytical scheme by their nature (revision-oriented versus non-revision-oriented), areas (global versus local), and types (evaluation, clarification, suggestion, and alteration). Finally, functions of social cues in online peer revision were analyzed based on Henri’s (1992) analytical scheme of social cues.
The results of the study revealed that the majority of the comments were local evaluations and alterations. Also, social cues were found to facilitate the students’ online peer revision and invigorate the text-based communication. The students perceived that online peer revision helped them enhance their friendship with peers and acquire autonomous learning. In addition, because the students were familiar with the MSN environment and MSN logs could be kept for revision reference, MSN was found to be beneficial to the process of online peer revision. The outcomes also uncovered some shortcomings of online peer revision. For example, the students were not concentrated on the discussions and may hesitate providing their comments due to consideration of peers’ dignity. Moreover, laborious typing and time-consuming nature prevented the students from in-depth discussions. Finally, some students failed to show up in the online peer revision.
Based on the study results, four pedagogical implications were provided. First, MSN logs helps teachers to understand the comments provided by students. Students can also review their English writing problems and revise their drafts. Second, teachers may require students to prepare hard copies of their peers’ drafts while undertaking online peer revision, or teachers may adopt advanced online systems to facilitate the process of online peer revision. Third, teachers should urge students to show up in their online peer revision. Finally, teachers may demonstrate how to conduct online peer revision effectively.

並列關鍵字

Synchronous online peer revision ； Social cues ； Perceptions of online peer revision ； Process writing

參考文獻

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oralperformance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback asregulation and secondlanguage learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.

Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annuals, 30(4), 513-523.

Antn, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-318.

Antn, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.