查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- A Better Form of Peer Review with the Integration of Critical Thinking Training in an EFL Writing Class--CMPR or OPPR?
- An Integrated Peer Review Design in an EFL Basic Writing Class
- 論道德教育的合理性基礎--黑爾的道德衝突理論與批判性思考
- 論道德教育的合理性基礎--黑爾與哈伯瑪斯道德教育觀之比較及其反省
- 回饋改善
- 系統動態的決策模式: 以土地規劃為例
- Anorectal Malformations-Update 1998
- 以數值QFT法用於控制系統之設計
- 分組主題回饋式討論教學法運用於電腦文書簡易排版教學之研究
- 臺灣的課程改革與社會科批判性思考教學
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | A Better Form of Peer Review with the Integration of Critical Thinking Training in an EFL Writing Class--CMPR or OPPR?=英文寫作課程中的同儕互評結合批判性思考訓練--CMPR或OPPR,何者較優? |
---|---|
作者 | 董綺安; 張淑英; 彭芳美; | 書刊名 | 逢甲人文社會學報 |
卷期 | 26 2013.06[民102.06] |
頁次 | 頁95-127 |
分類號 | 805.1 |
關鍵詞 | 批判性思考; 英語為外語之寫作教學; 回饋; 線上同儕互評; 口頭同儕互評; Critical thinking; EFL writing; Peer review; Computer-mediated peer review; Oral peer feedback; |
語文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 批判性思考的訓練融入寫作課程,其成效在文獻中早已被證實,但是在EFL 英語寫作課中,藉由不同形式的同儕互評來開發批判性思考卻不多見。為補足文 獻上的不足,本文旨在探索不同形式的同儕互評融入批判性思考的訓練,對英語 寫作能力的提升是否有差異。二十九位英文系學生分為兩組,一組參與線上同儕 互評(CMPR),另一組以英語口頭簡報為主的方式進行同儕互評(OPPR),兩組並同時 接受批判性思考的訓練。藉由文章初稿與修正稿的比較來評估兩組學生在文意、 組織方面的修改(global revision),句構、遣詞用字方面的修改(local revision)及文 章整體的修改這三方面是否有差異,以及結合批判性思考訓練和同儕互評的方式 是否對修訂文章有影響。研究結果顯示兩組在這三方面並無明顯差異,但是藉由 學生的反思日誌、同儕評語,發現寫作程度較弱的學生似能採納較多的同儕評 論,而且進步幅度優於寫作程度較佳的同儕。本文建議教師多鼓勵學生,活化同 儕互動的能量,給予更多的時間訓練批判性思考及表達自我,以增加學生運用批 判性思考的機會,修改出更好的文章。 |
英文摘要 | Past literature has affirmed the effectiveness of integrating critical thinking into an EFL writing course, but there is a dearth of research on developing critical thinking through different forms of peer review. To fill in the gap in the past research, this study aimed to explore whether there was a difference between different forms of peer review in developing critical thinking and writing proficiency. Twenty-nine English majors of a private university in Taiwan were divided into two groups: One participated in computer-mediated peer review (CMPR), and the other oral-presentation peer review (OPPR), while both receiving critical thinking training. Pre- and post-test writing assessments were used to investigate whether there were any differences in global, local or overall revisions between the two groups, and how critical thinking training embedded in different forms of peer review contributed to writing outcomes. The results found that there were no differences between the two peer review groups in global, local or overall revisions. However, by studying students’ reflection journals and peer feedback, the less proficient writers seemed to incorporate more peer feedback and hence their gains were higher than those of the proficient writers. In light of the findings, this study suggests more teacher encouragement to promote dynamics of peer review so that the learners can have more opportunities to exercise critical thinking skills and demonstrate quality text revision. In addition, more time for developing critical thinking is needed so that proficient writers may produce quality text revisions. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。