Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136764| 題名: | 具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式以及學習成效評估研究 An Argumentative Writing Mode with Cooperation Script based on a Collaborative Reading Annotation and Writing System to Facilitate Writing Performance |
作者: | 蔡宗飛 Cai, Zong-Fei |
貢獻者: | 陳志銘 Chen, Chin-Ming 蔡宗飛 Cai, Zong-Fei |
關鍵詞: | 議論文教學 合作閱讀標註系統 合作共筆系統 論證模式 合作腳本 先備知識 認知風格 團體凝聚力 團體效能 Argumentative writing teaching Collaborative reading annotation system Collaborative writing system Argumentation pattern Cooperation script Prior knowledge Cognitive style Group cohesion Group efficacy |
日期: | 2021 | 上傳時間: | 4-Aug-2021 | 摘要: | 議論文的學習能培養學習者思辨與議論能力的極佳管道，對於學習者而言是不可或缺的能力，但以教學現狀來說，議論文的寫作教學有其困難之處，急需改善。因此，本研究發展「具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式」，希望透過創新的教學模式，為教學者與學習者找到有效提升議論文寫作成效的新方法。\n本研究採用準實驗研究法設計教學實驗，並以臺中市某公立國小五年級兩個班級共51名學生為研究對象，將兩個班級分別隨機分派為實驗組與控制組。其中一班24名學生被分派為使用「具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式」的實驗組；另一班27名學生被分派為使用「不具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式」的控制組，探討兩組學習者，以及兩組不同以先備知識和認知風格學習者在學習成效、團體凝聚力與團體效能上是否具有顯著的差異。\n研究結果發現，採用「具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式」輔助議論文共筆的整體學習者、高低不同先備知識學習者，以及不同認知風個學習者，其學習成效皆顯著優於採用「不具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式」的控制組。但在團體凝聚力與團體效能上，則沒有達到統計上的顯著差異。\n最後基於研究結果，本研究提出應用「具合作腳本之合作閱讀標註與共筆議論文論證寫作模式」於教學場域的教學建議，以及未來可以進一步探討的研究方向。整體而言，本研究提供一個議論文寫作教學之創新有效教學模式，對於促進議論文寫作成效具有貢獻。 The study of how to write an argumentative essay is an excellent channel for cultivating learners’ thinking and argumentation ability and it is an indispensable ability for learners. However, in terms of the current teaching situation, the teaching of argumentative essays has its difficulties that need to be overcome urgently. Therefore, this study develops an argumentative writing mode with cooperation script based on a collaborative reading annotation and writing system, hoping to find a new way for teachers and learners to effectively improve the learning effectiveness of argumentation writing through an innovative teaching model.\nIn this study, a quasi-experimental research method was used to design an instruction experiment, and a total of 51 students in two fifth-grade classes of a public elementary school in Taichung City were recruited as the research subjects. The two classes were randomly assigned to the experimental group and the control group. Among them, 24 students in one class were assigned to the experimental group using an argumentative writing mode with cooperation script based on a collaborative reading annotation and writing system, while 27 students in the other class were assigned to use an argumentative writing mode without cooperation script based on a collaborative reading annotation and writing system. This study examines whether two groups of learners and two groups of learners with different prior knowledge and cognitive styles have significant differences in learning effectiveness, group cohesion, and group efficacy.\nThe study found that the overall learners, learners with different levels of prior knowledge, and learners with different cognitive styles who used the argumentative writing mode with cooperation script based on a collaborative reading annotation and writing system to assist the co-authoring of argumentative essays, their learning performance were significantly better than those of the control group that adopted the argumentative writing mode without cooperation script based on a collaborative reading annotation and writing system. However, there is no statistically significant difference in group cohesion and group efficacy.\nFinally, based on the research results, this study proposes several teaching suggestions for applying the argumentative writing mode with cooperation script based on a collaborative reading annotation and writing system in the teaching field, as well as several research directions that can be further explored in the future. On the whole, this study presents an innovative and effective teaching model for the teaching of argumentative essay writing, which contributes to the promotion of the learning performance of argumentative essay writing. |
參考文獻: | 中文文獻\n丁秀妃（2016）。以「說」帶「寫」之議論文寫作教學行動研究－以八年級國文科為例。國立臺灣師範大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\n洪月女、靳知勤(2008)。科學寫作理論與教學之探討。課程與教學季刊，11(2)，173-192。\n洪英芷（2014）。多點觸控支援合作設計式學習活動：合作腳本設計與系統實作。國立臺灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\n洪逸文、湯宜佩（2016）。高中特色課程的開發與實施：以論證課程為例。課程研究，201603 (11:1期)，23-57。\n林明進（2007）。作文教室─技巧篇。臺北市：國語日報。\n吳裕益（1987）。認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。教育學刊，7，51-89。\n邱美虹（2018）。以科學素養為導向的新課綱-從社會性科學議題融入課程談起。臺灣教育評論月刊，2018，7（10），01-07。\n周慶華（2001）。作文指導。臺北市：五南。\n洪順隆（2009）。當代文選。臺北市：五南。\n教育部（1999）。國民中小學九年一貫國語文課程綱要。臺北市：教育部。\n教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育國語文課程綱要。臺北市：教育部。\n黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習 (初版 ed.)。臺北：五南。\n唐淑華、林烘煜（2016）。從「透過閱讀而學習」到「透過寫作而理解」—論辨式寫作在青少年探究「人與己」及「人與他人」大問題上的應用（I）（II）。行政院科技部人文處103 年度研究計畫結案報告（編號：NSC103-2420-H003-014-MY2 ），未出版。\n曾多聞（2018）。美國讀寫教育改革教我們的六件事。新北市：字畝文化。\n彭柏緯、劉怡君（2020）。淺談國小國語文寫作教學之困境。臺灣教育評論月刊，2020，9（7），123-128。\n廖振凱（2020）。發展「合作共筆視覺化互動網絡分析系統」促進線上合作編輯成效。國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\n靳知勤、楊惟程、段曉林（2010）。引導式Toulmin論證模式對國小學童在科學讀寫表現上的影響。科學教育學刊，2010，第十八卷第五期，443-467。 \n\n外文文獻\nAbelson, R. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp.33-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.\nAlper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625-642. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x\nArnett, C., Suñer, F., & Pust, D. (2019). Using cooperation scripts and animations to teach grammar in the foreign language classroom. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 7(1), 31-50. doi:10.1515/gcla-2019-0003\nBalci, Y. (2000). Kreatives schreiben als hilfe beim erwerb der leseund schreibfertigkeiten. In: 7. Türkischer Germanistik-Kongress, Tagungsbeiträge, H.Ü.Philologische Fak.Ankara, 523-528.\nBerger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London: E. Arnold.\nBerland, K., Reiser, J.（2011）. Classroom communities` adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.\nBlauman, L., & Burke, J. (2014). The common core companion: The standards decoded. CA: Corwin.\nCarron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(3), 244-266.\nChen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77(1), 67-81. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/201487/\nChen, C. M., Wang, J. Y., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Facilitating English-Language reading performance by a digital reading annotation system with self-regulated learning mechanisms. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 102–114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.1.102\nCohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99-120. doi:10.2307/1163215\nConley, D & Gong, B（2010）.Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC.\nCorno,L., & Anderma, E. M. (2016). Handbook of Educational Psychology (3rd ed.). English: Routledge.\nDiFrancesca, D. (2015). The impact of writing prompts on learning during ill-structured problem solving ( doctoral thesis). North Carolina State University, United States. Available from ProQuest Central. (UMI No. 10110537)\nDarancık, Y. （2018）. Students’ views on language skills in foreign language teaching. International Education Studies, 11(7) , 165-166.\nDeane, P., O`Reilly, T., Chao, S., & Dreier, K. (2018). Writing processes in short written responses to questions probing prior knowledge. Grantee Submission, 54-55.\nDeane, P., Song, Y., van Rijn, P., O`Reilly, T., Fowles, M., Bennett, R., . . . Zhang, M. (2019). The case for scenario-based assessment of written argumentation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(6), 1575-1606.\nDiaz, C. R. (2017). Assessing the impact of 6+1 traits® of writing on improving Argumentative Writing Skills of Fifth Grade Students ( doctoral thesis). Available from Education Collection; Education Database; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (UMI No. 10636833).\nDillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3(1), 5-23. DOI:10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1\nDornbrack, J., & Dixon, K. (2014). Towards a more explicit writing pedagogy: The complexity of teaching argumentative writing. Reading & Writing, 5(1), 1-8.\nDuschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.\nDuschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.\nDyaram, L., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2017). Unearthed: The Other Side of Group Cohesiveness. Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 185-190.\nElola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language, Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71.\nFelton, M. K., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents` persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 672-683.\nFerrazzi, K. (2012), “How successful virtual teams collaborate”, Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/10/how-to-collaborate-in-a-virtua\nGoddard, D., Hoy, K., & Woolfolk, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.\nGonzalez-Howard, M. (2017). Interactional patterns in argumentation discussions: Teacher and student roles in the construction and refinement of scientific arguments ( doctoral thesis). Boston College, United States. Available from ProQuest Central. (UMI No. 10268214).\nGuzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in\norganizations. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3(1),\n269-313.\nHeinonen, K., De Grez, N., Hämäläinen, R., De Wever, B., & van der Meijs, S. (2020). Scripting as a pedagogical method to guide collaborative writing: University students` reflections. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(1), 1-20.\nHenderson, J., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668-1697.\nHerrick, J. A. (1998). Argumentation: Understanding and shaping argument. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.\nHernandez, A., Kaplan, M., & Schwartz, R.（2006）.Reading, Writing, Thinking. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 48-52.\nHillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6-12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.\nHsiao, H. S., Chen, J. C., Hong, J. C., Chen, P. H., Lu, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2017). A\nfive-stage prediction-observation-explanation inquiry-based learning model to\nimprove students’ learning performance in science courses. Eurasia Journal of\nMathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3393-3416. doi:\n10.12973/eurasia.2017.00735a\nHsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2010). Development of a reading material recommendation system based on a knowledge engineering approach. Computers & Education, 55(1), 76-83.\nHuang, Y. (2018). Effects of annotation sharing and guided annotation strategies on second language reading ( doctoral thesis). The Florida State University, United States. Available from Education Collection; Education Database; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (UMI No. 10750312)\nJääskelä, P., Nykänen, S., & Tynjälä, P. (2018). Models for the development of generic skills in Finnish higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(1), 130-142.\nJohnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Cooperation and the use of technology. In\nD. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and\ntechnology (pp.1017-1044). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.\nJohnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998). Advanced cooperative learning (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.\nKawase, R., Herder, E.&Nejdl, W.（2009）. A Comparison of Paper-Based and Online Annotations in the Workplace. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-04636-0_23\nKelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17-24.\nKolstø, S. D.（2001）. Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.\nKollar, I., Fischer, F., and Slotta, J. D. (2005). Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years, 331-340. DOI:10.3115/1149293.1149336\nKozhevnikov M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychol Bull 2007;133:464-481.\nKuhn, D.（2008）. Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nLawson, A. E. (2002). Sound and faulty arguments generated by pre-service biology teachers when testing hypotheses involving unobservable entities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(33), 237-252.\nLimbu, L., & Markauskaite, L. (2015). How do learners experience joint writing: University students` conceptions of online collaborative writing tasks and environments. Computers & Education, 82(1), 393-408.\nLin, S., Huang,P.,（2009）. Students` constructing argumentation about a socio-scientific issue The differences between sixth graders with different levels of academic achievement. International Journal of Science Education 32(9), 1191-1206. DOI:10.1080/09500690902991805\nLiu, X & Gao, Y.（2021）.Effects of Annotation Types Used at Different Point of Time during Reading on Vocabulary Learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(1), 81-91.\nLo, W. T., & Quintana, C. (2013). Students` use of mobile technology to collect data in guided inquiry on field trips. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th\nInternational Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York, New\nYork, USA.\nLocke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current\nDirections in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.\nLouisiana Department of Education. (2016). Guidelines for Library Media Programs\nIn Louisiana Schools. From https://www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library\nLu, J. & Deng, L. (2012). Reading Actively Online: An Exploratory Investigation of Online Annotation Tools for Inquiry Learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3), 1-16.\nLu, Z.（2010）.Learning to Annotate Scientific Publications. International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Posters Volume, 23-27 August 2010, Beijing, China.\nMäkitalo, K., Weinberger, A., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2004). Uncertainty-reducing cooperation scripts in online learning environments.\nMaulidia, F., Abidin, Z., & Saminan. (2020). The implementation of problem-based learning (PBL) model to improve creativity and self-efficacy of field dependent and field independent students. Malikussaleh Journal of Mathematics Learning, 3(1), 13-17.\nMathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., Maynard, M. T., & Mangos, P. M. (2010). Interactive\neffects of team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic\ncontrollers` collective efficacy and effectiveness. Human Performance, 23(1),\n22-40.\nMeans, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2), 139-178.\nMojgan, R.（2019）. Scaffolding argumentative essay writing via reader-response approach: A case study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(1).\nNingsih, S., Umamah, N., & M, N. (2021). Analysis of prior knowledge of educators on E-learning media and its relationship with students critical thinking ability. IOP Conference Series.Earth and Environmental Science, 747(1).\nOnrubia, J., & Engel, A. (2009). Strategies for collaborative writing and phases of knowledge construction in CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1256-1265.\nO`Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analysing and enhancing academic learning and performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.\nOkada, A., & Shum, S. B.(2008). Evidence-based dialogue maps as a research tool to investigate the quality of school pupils’scientific argumentation.International Journal of Research & Method in Education,31(3), 291-315.\nOsborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.\nPontual Falcão, T., & Price, S. (2011). Interfering and resolving: How tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 539-559.\nPrata, M. J., de Sousa, B., Festas, I., & Oliveira, A. L. (2019). Cooperative methods and self-regulated strategies development for argumentative writing. Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 12-27.\nPriyotomo, P., Setyowati, R., & Suharnomo, S. (2019). The role of team building training on team cohesiveness and organizational commitment in an international manufacturer in central java: Acces la success. Calitatea, 20(172), 56-61.\nRau, M. A., Bowman, H. A., & Moore, J. W. (2017). An adaptive collaboration script for learning with multiple visual representations in chemistry. Computers & Education, 109(3), 38–55.\nSadler, T. D.（2004）. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.\nSalim, A.（2014）. The Effect of Using Socio-Scientific Issues Approach in Teaching Environmental Issues on Improving the Students` Ability of Making Appropriate Decisions towards These Issues. International Education Studies, 7(8), 113-123.\nSavin-Baden, M., & Wilkie, K.（2006）. Problem-based learning online. New York: Open University Press.\nSchank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\nSpiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., and Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology 31(5): 24-33.\nSteven, E.（2010）. Applying Toulmin: Teaching Logical Reasoning and Argumentative Writing. English Journal, High school edition; 99(6), 56-62.\nToulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nVerheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371.\nWang, S. L., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy\nand collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2256-2268.\nWang, S. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2012). The role of collective efficacy, cognitive quality,\nand task cohesion in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).\nComputers & Education, 58(2), 679-687.\nWei, L., Firetto, C. M., Murphy, P. K., Li, M., Greene, J. A., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2019). Facilitating fourth-grade students` written argumentation: The use of an argumentation graphic organizer. Journal of Educational Research, 112(5), 627-639.\nWeinberger, Armin, Karsten Stegmann and Frank Fischer. （2010）. Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals. Computers in Human Behavior 26(4): 506–515.\nWeinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1-30.\nWitkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the\nembedded figures test. Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.\nXiao, M.（2011）. An essay of effective writing for argumentative writing of senior high school students. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(3).\nWu, H. (2018). The effects of field Independent/Field dependent cognitive styles on incidental vocabulary acquisition under reading task. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(7), 813-822.\nZeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L.（2002）. Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socio-scientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.\nZembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Sci¬ence Education, 93(4), 687-719.\nZhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127–136. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 圖書資訊學數位碩士在職專班 108913015 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108913015 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 301501.pdf | 4.12 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.