國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	鄭佳君 Chia-chun Cheng
論文名稱：	行動科技輔助合作寫作構思策略對國小學生早期英語讀寫能力之影響 The Effect of Mobile-supported Cooperative Prewriting Strategy Instruction on Early L2 Literacy of Elementary School Students in Taiwan
指導教授：	張國恩 Chang, Kuo-An 宋曜廷 Sung, Yao-Ting 籃玉如 Lan, Yu-Ju
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	資訊教育研究所 Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education
論文出版年：	2011
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	281
中文關鍵詞：	行動科技輔助合作寫作、早期L2讀寫能力、英語寫作動機、寫作構思策略教學
英文關鍵詞：	mobile-supported cooperative writing, early L2 literacy, English writing motivation, prewriting strategy instruction
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：103 下載：11
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

第二語言寫作研究指出，寫作構思策略在寫作過程中，不但具有不可或缺的重要性，而且還有改善寫作品質及寫作長度的潛能。然而，結合英語合作寫作構思策略與行動科技的相關實證研究，仍相當缺乏。因此，本研究旨在探討結合行動科技與英語合作寫作構思策略，對於EFL學習者早期英語讀寫能力及寫作動機的影響。
本研究採準實驗研究法，分為兩個實驗。研究工具包括「早期英語閱讀能力測驗」、「英語寫作能力測驗」、「英語寫作動機量表」，以及「行動科技輔助合作構思寫作活動回顧問卷」。研究對象為5個班級，共140名國小學生。前後測的量化分析方法為二因子混合共變數分析，以探討實驗處理對參與者L2讀寫能力及寫作動機的影響。回顧問卷、錄影帶資料及課堂觀察紀錄，則進行質性分析，並予以分類。
研究結果顯示，使用行動科技輔助合作寫作構思策略教學的實驗組在閱讀能力、寫作品質、寫作長度、及寫作動機方面，均顯著優於控制組的傳統紙本教學，而且與控制組相比，行動科技組也出現顯著較多的學習行為，以及較為理想的合作寫作模式。另外，學生的讀寫表現和寫作動機，會因採用不同的行動科技輔助合作寫作構思策略，而有差別；而不同的寫作構思策略，也會對不同程度學生的讀寫表現與寫作動機，產生不同的影響。
總結而言，本研究希望提出一個讓EFL寫作初學者，能利用行動科技和合作寫作構思策略，進行合作寫作的有效教學模式。此外，本研究希望能提供教師實際的寫作教學建議，使其能根據不同的寫作學習目標以及學生的程度，選擇適合的寫作構思策略，進行英語寫作教學。

Research in second language writing has suggested the necessity of prewriting strategy instruction in the writing process and its potential to improve both writing quality and quantity of EFL writers. However, studies which have empirically documented the effects of different prewriting strategies with the combination of cooperative learning and mobile technology are scant. Therefore, the aim of this study attempts to explore the effect of mobile-supported cooperative prewriting strategy instruction on EFL elementary school students’ early L2 literacy and writing motivation.
This study adopted a quasi-experiment design and conducted two experiments, involving three English reading ability tests, two English writing tests, an English writing motivation scale, and an after-treatment questionnaire. Five intact classes of 140 elementary school students participated in the study. The quantative analysis of test results was conducted through two-way mixed design analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to determine the intervention on participants’ L2 literacy and writing motivation. Qualitative data of participants’ learning behaviors and cooperative patterns were videotaped, observed carefully and categorized.
Results of this study showed that the mobile group significantly outperformed the traditional paper-and-pencil-based group in reading ability, writing quality, writing quantity, and writing motivation, and it also performed more learning-related behaviors and more ideal cooperative writing patterns. Another finding was that the adoption of different mobile-supported cooperative prewriting strategies may have different effects on students’ L2 literacy, writing motivation, learning behaviors, and cooperative patterns, and this was true of students of different proficiency levels. To conclude, this study may be of importance in proposing an effective writing instruction model for EFL young beginning writers with the support of prewriting strategies, cooperative learning and mobile technology. It also provides some pedagogical implications for EFL teachers to adopt different prewriting strategies based on students’ proficiency levels and different learning goals.

Table of Contents
CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………...i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT...……………………………………………………………...ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...……………………………………………………........iii
LIST OF TABLES..…………………………………………………………...…….....ix
LIST OF FIGURES….…...…………………….…………………………………….xiii
CHAPTER 1 Introduction    1
1 Background and Motivation    1
2 Purpose and research questions    5
3 Significance of the Study    8
4 Definition of key terms    9
5 Organization of the study    10
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review    11
1 Writing process and early writing instruction    11
1.1 Writing process    11
1.2 Early writing instruction    12
2 Prewriting strategy instruction    18
2.1 Mind mapping    19
2.2 Drawing    21
2.3 Brainstorming    22
3 The output hypothesis    22
4 Computer-assisted cooperative writing    26
4.1 Technology and early L2 literacy    26
4.2 Computer-assisted writing    27
4.3 Studies on computer-assisted writing    29
4.4 Technology-supported cooperative writing    30
5 Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) and writing instruction    32
6 Summary    35
CHAPTER 3 Experiment I: Paper-and-pencil-based vs. Mobile-supported Cooperative Prewriting Strategy Instruction    37
1 Participants    37
2 Instruments    38
2.1 Pre-study Background Survey    39
2.2 English reading ability tests    39
2.3 English writing tests    39
2.4 English Writing Motivation Scale    40
2.5 In-class observation checklists    41
2.6 Teaching materials    41
2.7 Writing rubrics    42
2.8 Hardware    42
3 The mobile-supported cooperative writing platform    42
4 Mobile-supported and paper-based cooperative prewriting tools    45
5 Design    47
6 Procedure    48
6.1 Mobile-supported cooperative prewriting strategy instruction 1: English riddles    50
6.2 Mobile-supported cooperative prewriting strategy instruction 2: English short stories    52
7 Data analysis    54
8 Results    55
8.1 English reading ability tests    57
8.1.1 Comparison between experimental and control groups    57
8.1.2 Comparison among subgroups using different prewriting strategies    60
8.2 English writing tests    64
8.2.1 Comparison between experimental and control groups    64
8.2.2 Detailed comparison between experimental and control groups’ writing quality based on five writing rubrics    68
8.2.3 Comparison among subgroups using different prewriting strategies    73
8.2.4 Detailed comparison among subgroups’ writing quality based on five writing rubrics    77
8.3 English writing tasks    84
8.3.1 Comparison between experimental and control groups    84
8.3.2 Comparison among subgroups using different prewriting strategies    86
8.4 English writing motivation    89
8.4.1 Comparison between experimental and control groups    89
8.4.2 Comparison among subgroups using different prewriting strategies    91
8.5 Results of in-class observation    93
8.5.1Comparison of participants’ writing behaviors    93
8.5.2 Comparison of cooperative writing patterns of focus groups    98
9 Discussion and conclusion    105
CHAPTER 4 Experiment II: Comparison of Mobile-supported Cooperative Prewriting Strategies: Mind mapping, Drawing, and Brainstorming
    111
1 Participants    113
2 Instruments    114
3 The mobile-supported cooperative writing platform    115
4 Mobile-supported and paper-based cooperative prewriting tools    115
5 Design    115
6 Procedure    115
7 Data analysis    116
8 Results    116
8.1 English reading ability tests    117
8.1.1 Comparison among mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming groups    117
8.1.2 Comparison among students of different proficiency levels    120
8.2 English writing tests    126
8.2.1 Comparison among mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming groups    126
8.2.2 Detailed comparison among mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming groups’ writing quality based on five writing rubrics    129
8.2.3 Comparison among students of different proficiency levels    134
8.2.4 Detailed comparison of writing quality based on five writing rubrics: Students of different proficiency levels    141
8.3 English writing tasks    147
8.3.1 Comparison among mind mapping, drawing and brainstorming groups    148
8.3.2 Comparison among students of different proficiency levels    150
8.4 English writing motivation    156
8.4.1 Comparison among mind mapping, drawing and brainstorming groups    156
8.4.2 Comparison among students of different proficiency levels    157
8.5 Summary of quantitative results    160
8.6 Results of in-class observation    162
8.5.1Comparison of participants’ writing behaviors: mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    162
8.5.2 Comparison of cooperative writing patterns of focus groups: Mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    167
9 Results of Questionnaire on Students’ Perception of the Mobile-supported Cooperative Prewriting Strategy Instruction    174
10 Discussion and conclusion    185
CHAPTER 5 Overall Discussion    191
CHAPTER 6 Conclusions    204
1 Conclusion    204
2 Pedagogical implications    206
3 Limitations    208
4 Suggestions for future research    208
REFERENCES    212
APPENDICES    225
Appendix A: Pre-study Background Survey    225
Appendix B: English Reading Tests    227
Appendix C: English Writing Test    229
Appendix D: English Writing Motivation Scale    232
Appendix E: In Class Observation Checklist    235
Appendix F: Sample Teaching Materials: Riddle and Story Instruction    237
Appendix G: Prewriting Strategy Survey    259
Appendix H: Writing rubrics    260
Appendix I: Questionnaire on Students’ Perception of the Mobile-supported Cooperative Prewriting Strategy Instruction    262
Appendix J: Sample written works of students using different prewriting strategies on the computer    267
Appendix K: Informed Consent Form    281

LIST OF TABLES
   Recent studies on writing instruction in elementary schools in Taiwan    15
   Comparison of writing programs    28
   Participant profile for Experimental I    38
   Detailed procedures of Teaching Package 1: English riddles    50
   Detailed procedures of Teaching Package 2: English short stories    53
   Results of prewriting strategy survey    55
   Reasons for choosing prewriting strategies    56
   Descriptive statistics of English reading ability tests    58
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English reading ability tests    58
   Simple main effects on NWF tests    59
   Descriptive statistics of English reading ability tests: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    61
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English reading ability tests: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    62
   Simple main effects on NWF: Groups using different pre-writing strategies    63
   Descriptive statistics of English writing tests    65
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English writing tests    65
   Simple main effects on ECT    66
   Simple main effects on ECL    67
   Descriptive statistics of ECT based on five writing rubrics    68
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on ECT based on five writing rubrics    69
   Simple main effects on ECT’s five writing rubrics    71
   Descriptive statistics of English writing tests: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    73
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English writing tests: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    75
   Simple main effects on EWT: Groups using different pre-writing strategies    76
   Simple main effects on EWL: Groups using different pre-writing strategies    77
   Descriptive statistics of ECT based on five writing rubrics: Groups using different pre-writing strategies    78
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on ECT based on five writing rubrics: Groups using different pre-writing strategies    80
   Simple main effects on ECT’s five writing rubrics: Groups using different pre-writing strategies    81
   Descriptive statistics of three English writing tasks    84
   Summary of one-way ANCOVA on English writing tasks    85
   Descriptive statistics of three English writing tasks: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    86
   Summary of One-way ANCOVA on English writing tasks: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    88
   Descriptive statistics of English Writing Motivation Scale    90
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English Writing Motivation Scale    90
   Simple Main Effects on English Writing Motivation Scale    91
   Descriptive Statistics of English Writing Motivation Scale: Subgroups Using Different Pre-writing Strategies    92
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English Writing Motivation Scale: Subgroups using different pre-writing strategies    92
   Writing behaviors of EG and CG and Chi-square analysis results    95
   Participant profile for Experiment II    113
   Results of students’ proficiency levels    117
   Descriptive statistics of English reading ability tests: Mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    118
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English reading ability tests: Mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    119
   Descriptive statistics of English reading ability tests: Students of different proficiency levels    121
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English reading ability tests: Students of different proficiency levels    122
   Simple main effects on NWF tests: High-ability students    124
   Descriptive statistics of English writing tests: Mind mapping, drawing and brainstorming    127
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English writing tests: Mind mapping, drawing and brainstorming    128
   Simple main effects on EWL: Mind mapping, drawing and brainstorming    129
   Descriptive Statistics of mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming groups’ ECT based on five writing rubrics    130
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming groups’ ECT based on five writing rubrics    131
   Simple main effects on ECT’s Vocabulary category    133
   Descriptive statistics of English writing tests: Students of different proficiency levels    135
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English writing tests: Students of different proficiency levels    137
   Simple main effects on EWL: High-ability students    139
   Simple main effects on EWL: Mid-ability students    140
   Descriptive Statistics of ECT based on five writing rubrics: Students of different proficiency levels    142
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on ECT based on five writing rubrics: Students of different proficiency levels    144
   Descriptive Statistics of three English writing tasks: Mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    148
   Summary of One-way ANCOVA on English writing tasks    149
   Descriptive Statistics of three English writing tasks: Students of different proficiency levels    151
   Summary of One-way ANCOVA on English writing tasks: High-ability students    152
   Summary of One-way ANCOVA on English writing tasks: Mid-ability students    154
   Summary of One-way ANCOVA on English writing tasks: Low-ability students    155
   Descriptive Statistics of English Writing Motivation Scale: mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    156
   Summary of Two-way ANCOVA on English Writing Motivation Scale: Mind mapping, drawing, and brainstorming    157
   Descriptive statistics of English Writing Motivation Scale: Students of different proficiency levels    158
   Summary of two-way ANCOVA on English Writing Motivation Scale: Students of different proficiency levels    159
   Simple main effects on English Writing Motivation Scale: Mid-ability students    160
   Summary of quantitative results in Experiment II    161
   Writing Behaviors of MG/DG/BG and Chi-square Analysis Results    165
   Results of after-treatment perception questionnaire: “I. Students’ perception of the mobile-supported cooperative prewriting strategy instruction”    176
   Results of after-treatment perception questionnaire: “II. Students’ perception of the online writing platform and equipment”    181

LIST OF FIGURES
   Three levels in a balanced system    23
   Mobile-supported cooperative writing platform     43
   Module 5: Poem Hunt Team    44
   Three cooperative prewriting tools in the writing platform    45
   Mobile-supported cooperative prewriting tool: Brainstorming    46
   Mobile-supported cooperative prewriting tool: Mind mapping    46
   Mobile-supported cooperative prewriting tool: Drawing    47
   Procedure of the study    49
   The Poem Hunt Team Module for group story relay activities    54
   Frequencies of each behavior category happened in each observed turn    97
   Milson’s patterns of communication    99
   Cooperative writing patterns of the experimental group    101
   Cooperative writing patterns of the control group    104
   Frequencies of each behavior category happened in each observed turn    166
   Cooperative writing patterns of the mind mapping group    169
   Cooperative writing patterns of the drawing group    170
   Cooperative writing patterns of the brainstorming group    172
                                

REFERENCES
Allen, V. (1986). Developing contexts to support second language acquisition. Language Arts, 63, 61-66.
Baldwin, F. (1999). Taking the classroom home. Appalachia, 32(1), 10–15.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69-93.
Bean, W., & Bouffler, C. (1997). Read, write, spell. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Belanger, Y. (2005). Duke University iPod first year experience final evaluation report. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://cit.duke.edu/pdf/ipod_initiative_04_05.pdf
Berthoff, A. (1981). The making of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton Cook.
Bissex, G. (1980). A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bonk, C., & King, K. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brodney, B., Reeves, C., & Kazelskis, R. (1999). Selected prewriting treatments: Effects on expository written by fifth-grade students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(1), 5-20.
Bromley, K. (2000). Teaching young children to be writers. In D. Strickland & L.M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing. New York: Teachers College Press.
Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chen, J. F. (2005). An Evaluation of the Influences of the Integration of Information Technology to English Teaching on Four Graders' Writing Ability. Unpublished master thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Chen, C. M., & Chung, C. J. (2008). Personalized mobile English vocabulary learning system based on item response theory and learning memory cycle. Computers & Education, 50(1), 77-90.
Chiou, Y. L. (2008). Prewriting as a Process in an EFL Context: A Scaffolding Perspective. Unpublished master thesis, National Chiayi University, Taiwan, (R.O.C.).
Chiu, C. H., Huang, C. C., & Chang, W. T. (2000). The evaluation and influence of interaction in network supported collaborative concept mapping. Computers & Education, 34, 17-25.
Chung, M. Y. (2008). A Study on Effects of the Text-Based Interactive Fiction Program in Reading and Writing on High EFL Achievers in an Elementary School. Unpublished master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Cooney, G., & Keogh, K. (2007). Use of mobile phones for language learning and
assessment for learning. Paper presented at MLearn 2007. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://www.learnosity.com/files/learnosity-use-of-mobile-phones-for-language-learning-and-assessment-for-learning.pdf
Crowe, A., & van’t Hooft, M. (2006). Technology and the prospective teacher: Exploring the use of the TI-83 handheld devices in social studies education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 99-119.
Cui, Y., & Bull, S. (2005). Context and learner modeling for the mobile foreign language learner. System, 33, 353-367.
Dauite, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141-159.
Dechant, E. (1993). Whole language reading: A comprehensive teaching guide. USA: Technomic.
Dujsik, D. (2008). The effects of pre-writing strategy training guided by computer-based procedural facilitation on ESL students’ strategy use, writing quantity, and writing quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
Ediger, A. (2001). Teaching children literacy skills in a second language. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.)(pp. 153-169). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 57-71.
Etchison, C. (1989). Word processing: A helpful tool for basic writers. Computers & Education, 6(2), 33-43.
Fang, Y. C. (2010). Perceptions of the computer-assisted writing program among EFL college learners. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 246-256.
Fernandez, M. (1999). Electronic versus paper. Learning and Leading with Technology, 26(8), 33-34.
First, C. G., & Macmillan, B. (1995). Writing process versatility. Intervention in School & Clinic, 31(1), 21-27.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Frederiksen, M. F. Whiteman, & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature of development, and teaching of written communication (Vol.2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum Associates.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Frohberg, D., Göth C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile Learning projects – a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 307-331.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1993). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(I). Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.jtla.org
Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S. (1995). Teaching practice handbook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.
Hannafin, M. J. & Dalton, D. W. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 338-342.
Hayes, T., & Ge, X. (2008). The effects of computer-supported collaborative learning on students' writing performance. International conference on learning sciences: Proceeding of the 8th international conference learning sciences, 1, 335-341.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 109-131.
Huang, C. J. (2002). The effects of teaching organizing strategies in the pre-writing phase on Chinese students’ English writing proficiency. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Hudelson, S. (1984). Can you ret an rayt en ingles: Children become literate in English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 221-238.
Hudelson, S. (1989). Write on: Children writing in ESL. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 431-452.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168-196.
Jacob, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). The impact of a cooperative or individualistic context on the effectiveness of conflict resolution training. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 801-823.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 785-811). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved
December10, 2010, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&docId=104858382
Kerchner, L. B., & Kistinger, B. J. (1984). Language processing/word processing: Written expression, computers, and learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(4), 329-335.
Kirkpatrick, H., & Cuban, L. (1998). Computers make kids smarter—right? Technos Quarterly for Education and Technology, 7(2), 1-10.
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detective PDA as a window into a virtual simulated world. In: Milrad, M., Hoppe, U., & Kinshuk (eds.) Proceedings of the international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education. Vxäjö, Sweden: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Inc., 95-98.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.)(pp. 219-232). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289.
Labbo, L. D. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children’s symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356-385.
Labbo, L. D., & Ash, G. E. (1998). What is the role of computer related technology in early literacy? In S. B. Neuman & K. A. Roskos (Eds.), Children achieving: Best practice in early literacy (pp. 180-197). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning and Technology, 11(3), 130-151.
Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T, & Chang, K. E. (2009). Let us read together: Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted reciprocal early English reading system. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1188-1198.
Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295-320.
Levelt, W. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1-22.
Lin, S. Y. (2010). The impact of Picture Prompt on the development of six graders' English writing ability. Unpublished master thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Lin, Y. J. (2010). Effects of collaborative concept mapping as a prewriting strategy on English paragraph writing performance of the EFL primary school students. Unpublished master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Lindroth, T & Bergquist, M. (2010). Laptopers in an educational practice: Promoting the personal learning situation. Computers & Education, 54, 311-320.
Lingnau, A., Hoppe, H. U., & Mannhaupt, G. (2003). Computer supported collaborative writing in an early learning classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 186-194.
Lin, S. Y., Strickland, J., Ray, B., & Denner, P. (2004). Computer-based concept mapping as a prewriting strategy for middle school students. MERIDIAN, 7(2). Retrieved July 15, 2011 from
http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/sum2004/cbconceptmaping
Liu, C. C., Chen, S. L., Shih, J. L., Huang, G. T., & Liu, B. J. (2011). An enhanced concept map approach to improving children’s storytelling ability. Computers & Education, 56, 873-884.
Liu, P. L., & Chen, C. J. (2010). Empirical Research on Computer-Assisted Concept Mapping for Writing Summaries. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1506-1512). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved June, 10, 2011, from
http://www.ncyu.edu.tw/files/site_content/dfl/%E4%BB%A3%E8%A1%A8%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C.pdf
Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., & Chang, Y. J. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 54, 436-445.
Liu, P. L., Chen, C. J., Chuang, K. C., & Chen, P. Y. (2010). Effects of computer-based individual concept map and computer-based collaborative concept map on writing performances for learners of different writing proficiency. Asia-Pacific
Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Osaka, Japan.
Luo, W. L. (2009). Effects of Dialogue Journals on English Learning and Writing of EFL Third Graders in Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Maine Education Policy Research Institute (MEPRI), (2003). The Maine LearningTechnology Initiative: Teacher, Student, and School Perspectives Mid-Year Evaluation Report. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from
http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/pdf/ts/mlti.pdf
Milson, F. (1973). An introduction to group work skill. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Murray, D. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Norris, E., Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (1998). Children’s use of drawing as a prewriting strategy. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 69–74.
Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34, 566-585.
Olshtain, E. (2001). Functional tasks for mastering the mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 207-217). USA: Heinle & Heinle.
Olson, J. (1992). Envisioning writing: toward an integration of drawing and writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Onrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53, 1256-1265.
Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In R. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 180-207). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(6), 443-457.
Oxford R., & Oxford, J. (2009). Second language teaching and learning in the net generation. Manoa: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Paulston, C. B., & Bruder, M. N. (1976). Teaching English as a second language: Techniques and procedures. Massachusetts: Winthrop.
Phoenix, J., & Hannan, E. (1984). Word processing in the grade 1 classroom. Language Arts, 61(8), 804-812.
Pishghadam, R., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2006). On the impact of concept mapping as a prewriting activity on EFL learners’ writing ability. IJAL, 9(2), 34-45.
Richard-Amato, P.A. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom: From theory to practice. (2nd Ed.). New York: Longman.
Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science-knowing and learning in open-inquiry science aboratories. Dordrecht：Kluwer.
Samuels, J. (2003). Wireless and handheld devices for language learning. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_50.pdf
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Relate-create-donate: An educational philosophy for the cyber generation. Computers & Education, 31, 25-39.
Silvernail, D. L. (2007). The impact of the Maine Learning Technology initiative on teachers, students, and learning. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from
http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/mlti.htm
Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine's middle school laptop program:Creating better writers. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from
http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare/Impact_on_Student_Writing_Brief.pd
Song, Y. (2008). SMS enhanced vocabulary learning for mobile audiences. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 2(1), 81-98
Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental vocabulary learning. ReCALL, 20(3), 290-314.
Stanley, G. (2006). Podcasting: Audio on the Internet comes of age. TESL-EJ, 9(4), 1-7.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383.
Sotillo, S. (2002). Constructivist and collaborative learning in a wireless environment. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 16-20.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
Strickland, D. S., & Morrow, L. M. (2000). Beginning reading and writing. NY: Teachers College Press.
Sturm, J., & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 17(2), 124-139.
Suhr, K. (2008). Laptops and fourth grade literacy: Assisting the jump over the "fourth grade slump." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA.
Sung, Y. L. (2008). A case study on the use of inspiration to assist college EFL students’ writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu Jen University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 217-228.
Urzua, C. (1987b). “You stopped too soon”: Second language children composing and revising. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 279-304.
Vacc, N. N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by midly mentally handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54(2), 156-165.
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, H. L. (2007). Effects of Little English Books on Reading and Writing Performance of Students in Elementary School in Southern Taiwan. Unpublished master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Wang, P. L. (2005). A research on mapping teaching on English story rewriting to sixth-graders. Unpublished master thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 3-8.
Wepner, S. B., & Ray, L. C. (2000). Sign of the times: Technology and early literacy learning. In D. Strickland & L.M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wu, S. R. (2007). Effects of group composition in collaborative learning of EFL writing. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal Access in HCI (pp. 843-849). New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Xu, Y. L. (2008). The Effects on Sixth-Grade Elementary School Students’ English Writing Ability, Attitude, Creativity, and Creative Tendency through Multiple Intelligence Teaching Method in Writing. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Yalden, J. (1987). The communicative syllabus: Evaluation, design and implementation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yeşilyurt, S. (2008a). A self-determination approach to teaching writing in pre-service EFL teacher education. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Erzurum: Atatürk University.
Zaid, M. A. (2011). Effects of web-based pre-writing activities on college EFL students’ writing performance and their writing apprehension. Journal of King Saud University - Languages and Translation, 23(2), 77-85. Retrieve July 15, 2011 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210831911000233
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289-314.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文