評量規準對進行大學生同儕寫作回饋之效能研究

Effects of the Use of Rubric Implemented for Peer Review in EFL College Writing Class

陳珈璘(Chia-Ling Chen)

指導教授 ： 中澤一亮

元智大學/人文社會學院/應用外語學系/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6838/YZU.2009.00049

摘要

隨著重要的理論，社會文化理論(social nature of learning)，協同學習理(collaborative language learning)，以及過程寫作理論(process writing approach)，同儕英文寫作評論(peer review)已在英語為第二外語(ESL)及英語為外國語言的國家(EFL)受到重視。有許多研究指出同儕評論在英文寫作的益處，然而，因為有些評語太過模糊，且同儕的程度不一，導致部份學生對同儕評語抱著負面的態度。傳統的同儕回饋是學生被給予一些提示問題(guiding questions)，用來引導評論同儕的文章。然而，這樣的方式或許無法保證學生了解一篇好的寫作應有的標準，且無法知道學生是否能給予有助益的評語。評量規準(rubric)有一系列用以判斷的標準(explicit criteria)，每個標準依表現分出等級(levels of qualities)，且每個等級都會有文字描述(related-performance descriptions)，因此它在許多教學環境下已被用於評量學生的學習表現。然而，對於運用評量規準在同儕寫作評論的影響這部份研究較少。此外，較少文獻探討評量規準對於評語及文章修改的影響。因此，為了提升同儕評論的效用，本研究探討評量表對於同儕英語寫作回饋的效用。
本研究對象為40位兩班大二英語寫作的學生。在同儕回饋教學中，實驗組被給予評量規準(rubric)，而對照組給予評論單(peer-editing worksheet)。每個學生在此研究前和研究後需完成兩篇課堂上的英文寫作及兩份問卷。此外，學生需完成三回合寫作的初稿及完稿。在同儕回饋進行中，兩組學生需利用所屬的輔助工具提供寫作評語，且作者需針對同儕給予的評語進行文章修改。兩組的同儕評語、文章修改部份、英文寫作表現、 及對同儕回饋的看法都是本研究的重點。
研究結果顯示如下：第一，利用評量規準進行同儕回饋的學生能更致力於此活動，且能提供較多的評語在寫作內容及組織上；此外，學生也能試著解釋本身的想法及給予具體的評語；相較之下，利用評論單的學生則傾向找出同儕的寫作文法問題。第二，大多數的學生都會參考同儕的意見進行文章修改；然而，實驗組的文章修改，不單侷限在寫作文法上，也會注重深層意涵的表現；而對照組的學生，則多只進行文法修正。第三，在學生的初稿與完稿發現，實驗組的學生在文章修改上，作文的內容組織都能有顯著的提升，而另一組則主要在文法上有所進步。第四，根據前測及後測的比較，兩組學生在寫作能力上都有所增進。最後，大多數的受試者皆對同儕回饋持肯定的看法，且實驗組的同學大都支持，透過評量規準，他們更能了解寫作應有的標準，且在評論同儕文章時，能較有信心的表達看法。
本研究顯示，在作文教學中，透過評量規準進行同儕回饋時，教師可更清楚表達他們對寫作的要求，且同時強調作文語法及整體意涵的重要性。此外，在進行同儕互評時，學生能有機會聆聽對方的想法，且加以闡述自己的意見。未來也建議評量規準能針對不同的寫作類型及目的來設計，且研究也能包含更多不同背景的受試者，用來更進一步證實評量規準在進行同儕回饋之效用。

關鍵字

同儕評鑑 ； 評量規準 ； 英文寫作

並列摘要

Prevalent supportive theories including the social nature of learning, collaborative language learning, and the process writing approach have in turn led to increased attention on peer reviewing within ESL and EFL classrooms. A large number of studies support the effectiveness of peer evaluation (Berg, 1999; de Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Mangelsdor, 1992; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Paulus; 1999); however, comment vagueness and doubts concerning language proficiency have resulted in some L2 students expressing negative reactions towards using peer feedback in their classes.
Traditionally, students were asked to evaluate peer writing examples according to a list of guiding questions. However, this was not sufficient enough to ensure that students understood the criteria for good writing and learned how to provide constructive suggestions.
In comparison, rubrics are designed according to explicit criteria, multiple levels of quality, and related-performance descriptions; they are used to evaluate students’ academic performance in many educational settings (Andrade & Du, 2005; Hafner & Hafner, 2003; Petkov & Petkova; 2006; Schamber & Mahoney; 2006). Nevertheless, only a few researchers have investigated the impact of rubrics on peer review activities (Rothschild & Klingenberg, 1990; Wyngaard & Gehrke, 1996). In addition, little is known about how the quality of comments offered or students’ revisions are influenced by rubrics. In order to increase from the beneficial aspects associated with peer review activities, the present study explores the effects of peer feedback using clear criteria and detailed explanations of writing quality (i.e., rubrics) during the peer review sessions.
The participants were 40 Taiwanese sophomore students enrolled in two English writing classes at a private university. The experimental group (EG) was exposed to the rubric, while the control group (CG) was given a traditional worksheet to use during the peer review training. All participants were asked to complete two timed writing tasks and two questionnaires before and after the training, which included three writing cycles of drafting. Each participant provided comments based on their assigned tool, and all students revised their drafts based on the peer feedback. The quality of the peer comments, the language aspects of the revisions, the students’ multiple-writing performances, and their perceptions of peer evaluation are the main focuses in the present study.
The results reveal that the EG was more engaged in the task and provided more global-based comments, as well as local-level comments; further, they were also more likely to explain their opinions and give specific suggestions. However, the CG tended to focus on students’ surface level problems, and emphasized grammatical accuracy. Furthermore, students from both groups tended to incorporate their peers’ suggestions into their texts. EG were likely to make meaning-level revisions, while, CG made changes on grammar errors. Therefore, the findings show that the EG students’ revised drafts showed improvement in both content and organization; however, the CG students mainly progressed in terms of form. As well, the students’ overall quality in terms of English writing was enhanced in both groups. The questionnaire also showed that most participants responded positively to the peer review activity. However, the students in the experimental group found that using the rubric allowed them to better understand the writing quality criteria and grow in confidence in terms of communicating their opinions and evaluating others’ writing.
It is recommended that instructors utilize rubrics to clearly express their writing expectations and highlight the importance of global as well as local perspectives in writing. In this way, students can also have the chance to consider peer suggestions and clarify their writing during peer review activities. Future studies may consider rubrics designed for different rhetorical modes. Also, additional participants from heterogeneous backgrounds should be included to validate the effectiveness of using rubrics for English writing peer review activities.

並列關鍵字

Peer Review ； Rubric ； English Writing

參考文獻

Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27-30.

Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubrics-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-34.

Andrade, H. G., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1-11.

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classrooms: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of training peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.