1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 外國語文學院
  3. 英國語文學系
  4. 學位論文
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31813
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor林啟一zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorLin, Chi-yeeen_US
dc.contributor.author鄒美芸zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorTsou,Mei-yunen_US
dc.creator鄒美芸zh_TW
dc.creatorTsou,Mei-yunen_US
dc.date2004en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-09-14T04:17:20Z-
dc.date.available2009-09-14T04:17:20Z-
dc.date.issued2009-09-14T04:17:20Z-
dc.identifierG0919510062en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/31813-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description英國語文學系英語教學碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description91951006zh_TW
dc.description93zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本研究旨在探討後設認知教學策略對高中生英文作文的學習成效。研究者以桃園縣立永豐高中五年某班中的四十二位學生為對象，進行為時一學期共十五週，每週兩節課的實驗。教學實驗進行之前，全體學生接受研究者改編自Schraw and Dennison (1993)，O’ Neil and Abedi (1996)，Wey(1998) 所編製的後設認知量表，實施後設認知量表前測，並接受作文的前測。研究者根據作文前測的成績區分出能力高、中、低三組於教學實驗結束之後施以訪談。全體學生並於教學實驗結束之後，再度接受後設認知量表與作文的後測。以觀察其在策略教學後英文寫作表現與後設認知行為的差異情形。\r\n本研究主要的發現下：\r\n1.後設認知策略教學的確能夠有效提升高中生的英文寫作能力。\r\n2.後設認知策略教學的確能夠有效增加高中生在英文寫作中的後設認知 程度。\r\n3.高中生英文寫作表現的確與後設認知的成長有正相關。\r\n4.學生對於後設認知策略教學均抱持正面的態度。\r\n有鑑於此，本研究建議高中英文教師應用後設認知教學策略於高中英文作文教學中。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThis researcher explored the effectiveness of the metacognitive strategy instruction in senior high school writers’ performance, based on the theories of metacognitive strategies. Forty-two high school students in Yung-feng were selected to be subjects. Adapted from Schraw and Dennison’s Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (1993), O’ Neil and Abedi’s State Metacognitive Inventory (1996) and Wey’s Writing Self-Assessment Questionnaire (1998), Mtacognitive Awareness Questionnaires before and after Instruction, were used to measure students’ metacognitive awareness. To assess the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on writing performance, forty-two pieces of writing were assigned in class and then scored based on criteria by the CRESST writing score guide: overall impression, quality and scope of content, organization and presentation of content, and mechanics. The Pair-Sample T test was performed to test the hypotheses in this study. The findings can be summarized as follows: (1) Metacognitive strategy instruction has positive effects on the students’ writing performance. (2) Metacognitive strategy instruction has positive effects on students’ metacognitive awareness. (3) Students’ writing performance proved correlated to their metacognitive awareness. (4) Students’ attitudes towards the metacognitive strategy instructions were generally positive. Thus, we recommend that metacognitive strategy instruction be used in English writing in senior high school.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsTable of Content\r\nAcknowledgements.............................................iii\r\nList of Tables................................................ix\r\nList of Figures................................................x\r\nChinese Abstract..............................................xi\r\nEnglish Abstract.............................................xii\r\nChapter\r\n1. Introduction................................................1\r\n1.1 Motivation and Goal........................................1\r\n1.2 Purpose of the Study.......................................4\r\n1.3 Significance of the Study..................................4\r\n1.4 Research Questions.........................................5\r\n1.5 Definition of Terms........................................6\r\n2. Literature Review...........................................9\r\n2.1 Metacognition..............................................9\r\n2.2 Writing in Language Learning..............................12\r\n2.2.1 The Nature of Writing in the Second Language\r\n Curriculum..............................................15\r\n2.2.2 Characteristices of ESL/EFL Writers.....................16\r\n2.3 Metacognition in Language Learning........................19\r\n2.3.1 Metacognition in Writing................................20\r\n2.3.2 Assessing Metacognitive Awareness.......................22\r\n2.3.2.1 Assessing Learners` Attitude..........................26\r\n2.3.3 Teaching Metacognitive Awareness........................27\r\n2.3.3.1 Explicit Instruction..................................29\r\n2.3.3.2 Scaffolded Instruction................................32\r\n2.4 Lack of Metacognitive Research in Second Language\r\n Writing...................................................33\r\n2.5 Research Hypotheses.......................................33\r\n3. Methodology................................................36\r\n3.1 Subjects..................................................36\r\n3.2 Instruments...............................................36\r\n3.2.1 CRESST Writing Scoring Guide............................37\r\n3.2.2 Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire...................38\r\n3.2.2.1 Validity and Reliability of Metacognitive\r\n Awareness Questionnaire...............................38\r\n3.2.3 Students` Response Questionnaire .......................43\r\n3.2.4 The Pretest and Post-test for Compositions..............43\r\n3.2.4.1 Inter-rater Coefficient Reliability\r\n of Composition........................................45\r\n3.2.5 Writing Assignment with Think Sheet.....................47\r\n3.2.6 Retrospective Interview.................................48\r\n3.3 Research Procedure........................................49\r\n3.4 Data Analysis.............................................51\r\n4. Results....................................................52\r\n4.1 Students’ Writing Performance............................53\r\n4.1.1 A Comparison of Students’ Writing Performance\r\n before and after the Metacognitive Strategy\r\n Instruction ...........................................53\r\n4.1.2 A Comparison of Students’ Writing Performance\r\n in Four Features between the Pre-test and the\r\n Post-test...............................................55\r\n4.2 Students’ Metacognitive Awareness........................56\r\n4.2.1 Students’ Metacognitive Awareness\r\n before and after Writing Instruction....................56\r\n4.2.2 Student’s Metacognitive Awareness in\r\n Declarative Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge and\r\n Conditional Knowledge for High, Low Proficiency\r\n Group...................................................58\r\n4.2.3 Declarative Knowledge ..................................59\r\n4.2.4 Procedural Knowledge ..................................60\r\n4.2.5 Conditional Knowledge ..................................61\r\n4.2.6 Students’ Response to Five Categories of Writing\r\n Difficulties ...........................................63\r\n4.3 The Interrelationship of Writing Scores and Metacognitive\r\n Awareness.................................................64\r\n4.4 Retrospective Interview Report............................65\r\n4.5 Students’ Response Questionnaires........................71\r\n4.5.1 Response to Compose-aloud Mental Modeling\r\n Instruction...............................................71\r\n4.5.2 Response to Think Sheet.................................72\r\n5. Discussion.................................................73\r\n5.1 Findings .................................................73\r\n5.1.1 Students’ Writing Performance .........................73\r\n5.1.2 Students’ Metacognitive Awareness......................75\r\n5.1.3 Writing Achievement and Metacognition...................77\r\n5.1.4 Retrospective Interview Report .........................79\r\n5.1.5 Students’ Responses to the Metacognitive Strategy\r\n Instruction ...........................................80\r\n5.2 Limitations of the Study.................................81\r\n5.3 Pedagogical Implications.................................82\r\n5.4 Recommendations for Future Investigations................83\r\nReferences...................................................84\r\nAppendixes\r\nA. CRESST Writing Scoring Guide.............................101\r\nB. Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire (English Version)..105\r\nC. Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire before Insturcition107\r\nD. Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire after Instruction..109\r\nE. Students’ Response Questionnaire .......................111\r\nF. Pretest Composition......................................112\r\nG. Post-test Composition....................................113\r\nH. Writing Assignment.......................................114\r\nI. Think Sheet..............................................116\r\nJ. Retrospective Interview..................................117zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0919510062en_US
dc.subject英文寫作zh_TW
dc.subject後設認知zh_TW
dc.subject後設認知策略教學zh_TW
dc.subjectEnglish Writingen_US
dc.subjectMetacognitionen_US
dc.subjectMetacognitive Strategy Instructionen_US
dc.titleThe Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in English Writing in Senior High Schoolzh_TW
dc.title後設認知教學策略對高中生英文作文的成效zh_TW
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.referenceAllport, G. W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 1-13). New York: Jhon Wiley & Sons.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, J.R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd Ed.). New York: Freeman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, N.J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463659)zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson, N. J. & Vandergrift, L. (1996). Increasing metacognitive awareness in the L2 classroom by using think-aloud protocols and other verbal report formats. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3-18). National Foreign Language Resource Center. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAziz, L.J. (1995). A model of paired cognitive and metacognitive strategies: its effect on second language grammar and writing performance. Published dissertation. California: the University of San Francisco.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBeach, R. (1992). Multidisciplinary perspectives on literary research. Urbana, LL: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBaker, E. L., Aschbacher, P. R., Niemi, D. & Sato, E. (1992). CRESST performance assessment models: Assessing content area explanations. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standard, and Student Testing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBaker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBaker, L., & Cerro, L. (2002). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99-145). Lincoli, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBeach, R. (1992). Multidisciplinary perspectives on literary research. Urbana, LL: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDyson, A. H. (1990). On teaching writing: A review of the literature (Occasional Paper No. 20). Berkeley: University of California.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceElley, W., Barham, I., Lamb, H., & Wyllie, M. (1976). The role of grammar in a secondary school curriculum. Research in the teaching of English, 10(1), 5-21.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEllis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, England:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEnglert, C. S. Raphael, T. E. & Anderson L. M. (1989). Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing Project, East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEnglert, C., Raphael,T., Anderson, L., Anthony, H., Stevens, D., & Fear, K. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special education classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 28, 337-373.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEnglert, C., Raphael, T., Fear, K., & Anderson, L. (1989). Students’metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disablitiy Quarterly, 11, 18-46.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEricsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceErtmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1996). The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science 24: 1-24. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisherszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMacAtthur, C. A., Harris, K., & Graham, S. S., & Schafer, W. S. (1995). Evaluation of writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278-291.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlavell, J. H. (1987). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGarner, R. (1988). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGarner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517-529.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGarner, R., and Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychology, 24, pp143-158.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGaudiani, C. (1981). Teaching writing in the foreign language curriculum. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, Vol. 43. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGaskill, W. (1986). Revising in Spanish and English as a second language: A process oriented study of composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGerring, S.A. (1990). Differences in metacognitive knowledge and behavior between successful and unsuccessful college writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoddard, A. (1995). Expertise and assessment. In M. Wittrock and E. Baker (Eds.), Testing and Cognition (pp.17-30). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMagnan, S. S. (1985). Teaching and testing proficiency in writing: Skills to transcend the second-language classroom. In A. C. Omaggio (Ed.), Proficiency, curriculum, articulation: The ties that bind. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the teaching of Foreign languages.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoodman, Y. M. (1980). Techniques for collecting literacy events from young children. In W. T. Fagan, C. R. Cooper, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), (1985). Measures for research and evaluation in the English language arts (vol. 2, pp. 19-20). Urbana, LL: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1985). Metacognitive processes: Reading and writing narrative discourse. In D. L. Forrest- Pressley, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 2, pp.1-75). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGourgey, A. F. (2001). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 17-32). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGrabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996) Theory and practice of writing. New York : Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGraham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGraham, S., & Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991a). Writing instruction. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 310-343). San Diego: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGraham, S., Harris, K, R., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991b). Writing and writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89-114.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGraham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled and normally achieving students’ knowledge of the writing and the compositing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGraham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 230-240.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHairston, M. (1986). Different products, different processes: A theory about writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMarkman, E. M. (1985). Comprehension monitoring: Developmental and educational issues. In S. F. Chipman & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions (pp. 275-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHannafin, M., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34, 48-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997a). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open Learning environments: Foundattions, methods, and models. In C. Reigelutch (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 115-140). Mahlway, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHansen, J. (1983). Authors respond to authors. Language Arts, 60, 970-977.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHarris, K. R. & Graham, S. (1992) Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris and J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school. Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHarris, K. R. & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHarris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., and Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated writers. Theory into Practice; Spring 2002; 41, 2, 110-115.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHartman, H. J. (2001a). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman(Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 33-68). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHartman, H. J. (2001b). Teaching Metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 149-172). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMason, J. M., McCormick, C., & Bhavnagri, N. (1986). How are you going to help me? Lesson negotiations between a teacher and preschool children. In D. B. Yaden, Jr., & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy: Conceptualizing what it means to read and write. (pp. 159-172). Portsmouth, NY: Heinemann.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHeppner, M. J., Humphrey, C. F., Hillembrand-Gunn, T. L., & DeBord, K. A, (1995). The differential effects of rape prevention programming on attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(4), 508-518.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHillocks, G. J. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 71-82.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHoek, D., Eden, P. & Terwel, J. (1999). The effects of integrated social and cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematics achievement in secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 9, 427-448.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading. Issuses in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKao, S. L. & Tseng, S. D. (1986). Writing as a cognitive process: A protocol analysis. The Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 3, 263-280.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKaufman, H. H., & Randlett, A. L. (1983, December). The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies of good and poor readers at college level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Reading Forum, Sarasota, FL.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ 3 (1)zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKaplan, R. B. (1983). An introduction to the study of written texts: The “discourse compact”. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (pp. 138-151). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKing, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307-317.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning, In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.). Handbook of Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 79-102. New York: John Weiy and Sons, Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1998). Scaffolded technology tools to promote teaching and learning in science. ASCD Yearbook (Vol. 1998, pp. 31-45). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications. Language Teaching Methodology Series. Oxford, England: Pergamon Institute of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrashen, S. D., & Terrel, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLand, S. & Hill, J., (1998). Open-ended learning environments: A theoretical framework and model for design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MO: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 839)zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLawless, K. A., Brouwn, S. W., & Cartter, M. (1997). Applying educational psychology and instructional technology to health care issues: Cambating Lyme disease. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(2), 287-297.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLeki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLipson, M. Y. (1982, April). Promoting children’s metacognition about reading through direct instruction. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Reading Association, Chicago.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLiu, C. K. (1999). Identifying the writing processes a college student has to undergo: The generating model. The Proceedings of the 16th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei, 16, 303-312.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263-284.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2000). Literacy’s beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMeichenbaum, D., Burland, S., Gruson, L., & Cameron, R. (1985). Metacognitive assessment. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children (pp. 3-30). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMonroe, J. H. (1975). Measuring and enhancing syntactic fluency in French. The French Review, 48(6), 1023-1031.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNational Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (1994). Interrater reliability and topic generalizability using CRESST and NAEP scoring rubrics: A latent-variable modeling approach. Unpublished manuscript. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOlson, C.B. (1992). Thinking/writing: Fostering critical thinking through writing. New York: HarperCollins.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOmaggio, A. C. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle &Heinle Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’ Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L., & Russo, R. (1985a). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35(1), 21-46.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Küpper, L. (1985b). Learning strategies applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceO’Neil, H. F. Jr., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 89(4), 234-245.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S.G., & Ayres, L.R. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolio and authentic assessment. American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S.G., & Byrnes, J.P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B.J Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement, Theory, Research and Practice. (pp.169-195). New York: Springer-verlage.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1983). Levels of inquiry in writing research. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 3-25). New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceParis, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePintrich P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, vol. 41, No.4, 219-225zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePintrich P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measuremnets.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRaimes, A. (1985a). What unskilled EFL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2). 229-258.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRaphael, T. E., Kirschner, B. W., & Englert, C. S. (1986). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about writing. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRidley, D.S., Schutz, P.A., Glanz, R.S. & Weinstein, C.E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education 60 (4), 293-306.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRinehart, S. D.., & Platt, J. M. (1984). Metacognitive awareness and monitoring in adult and college readers. Forum for Reading, 15(2), 54-62..zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRosenshine, S. & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership. April. 26-33.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRosenshine, S. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of Research. Review of Educational Research. 64(4). 479-530.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46(1), 137-147.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBerninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. B. (1995). Integrating low-and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293-309.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSara, E. W., Thomas, B. & John S. (Spring 2003). Using an information problem-solving model as a metacognitive scaffold for multimedia-supported information-based problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Vol. 45. 321-41.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSaye, J., & Brush, T. (1999). Student engagement with social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 472-504.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceScardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986).Research on written composition. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York: Macmillan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchmitt, M.C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (1996). Writing performance and knowledge about writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 87-107). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3-16). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology 19, 460-475.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, 351-371.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSilva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSitko, B. M. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publisherszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrookes, A. & Grundy, P. (1998). Beginning to write. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStaples, A. H., (1997) Identifying the Planning Activities for Writing of Sixth-grade Students. Published dissertation. The University of North Carolina.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSternberg, R.J. (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development: A componential approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 165-180). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSwartz, C. W., de Kruif, R.E.L., Wakely, M.B. (1998). The Index of Metacognitive Awareness about Writing. Unpublished Instrument. The Center for the study of Development and Learning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaylor, N.E. & Blum, I. H. (1980). Written Language Awareness Test. Washington, DC: The Catholic University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVictori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: a case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeaver, C. (1988). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistice to whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWelch, M. (1992). The PLEASE strategy: A metacognitive learning strategy for improving the paragraph writing of students with mild learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 119-128.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWenden, A. L. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learner. Language Learning, 37(4), 573-597.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWey, S.C., (1998). The Effects of goal orientations, metacognition, self-efficacy and effort on writing achievement. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of Southern California, California.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453- 481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWhite, B. (1985). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYou, Y. L. (1999). To write coherently in L2. The proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multimedia Language Education (pp. 313-327). Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYou, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (1999). The role of metacognitive theory in L2 writing: Speculations and suggestions. In The Selected Papers of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 181-192). Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYou, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2000). Composition instruction: A metacognitive approach. In The Selected Papers of the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 107-117). Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYou, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigation the Metacognitive Awareness and Strategies of English-majored University Student Writers. In The Selected Papers of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 106-119). Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYou, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002). The differences between L2 mature and immature writers: A metacognitive approach. In the proceedings of the Twentieth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (pp. 597-609). Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering, meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16. 195-209.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2). 165-187.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19. 79-101.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A. & Campione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.M. Markman, (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology: cognitive development, Vol. 3,177-266. New York: Wileyzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A.L., Campione, J. C., & Barclay, C. R. (1979). Training self-checking routines for estimating test readiness: Generalization from list learning to prose recall. Child Development, 50(2), 501-512.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing and Learning: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. (pp.393-451). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBruner, J. (1985). On teaching thinking: An afterthought. In S. F. Chipman & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Thinking and Learning skills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions. (pp. 597- 608). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarcia, T., & Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance. Issues and educational implications (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81-95.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCava, M. T. (1999). Second Language learner strategies and the unsuccessful second language writer. Published dissertation. Columbia: Columbia University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22 (1), 13-24.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChen, F. (2003). The EFL beginning writers’ perception and metacognitive knowledge of English writing – A study on the freshman at university of science and technology. Unpublished master thesis. Taiwan : National Yunlin University of Science and Technology.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChin, Y.M. (2003). The Effects of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on EFL Writing: A Case Study. Unpublished master thesis. Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, A.D. (1990). Language learning: insights for learners, teachers and researchers. New York: Newbury House.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCooper, T.C. (1981). Sentence combining: An experiment in teaching writing. Modern Language Journal, 65 (2), 158-165.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCorno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take responsibility for learning and performance. Elementary School Journal, 93, 69-83.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCoyle, K., Basen-Engquist, K., Kirby, D., Parcel, G., Banspach, S., Harrist, R., et al. (1999). Short-term impact of Safer Choices: A multicomponent, School-based HIV, other STD, and pregnancy prevention program. Journal of School Health, 69(5), 181-188zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCross, D.R. and Paris, S.C. (1988). Developmental and instrumental analysis of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131-142.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning 39 (1), 81-141.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDevine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J.G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 195-127). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers, Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDermody, M. (1988, February). Metacognitive strategies for development of reading comprehension for younger children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, L.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 070)zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDonaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana/Croom Helm.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDonovan, D. T.., & Singh, S. N. (1999). Sun-safety behavior among elementary school children: The role of knowledge, social norms, and parental involvement. Psychological Reports, 84, 831-836.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDowning, J. (1984). Task awareness in the development of reading skills. In J. Dowing & R. Valtin (Eds.), Language awareness and learning to read (pp. 27-55). New York: Springer-Verlag.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDowning, J. (1986). Cognitive clarity: A unifying and cross-cultural theory for language awareness phenomena in reading. In D. B. Yaden, Jr., &S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy: Conceptualizing what it means to read and write (pp. 13-30). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDyson, A. H. (1985). Individual differences in emerging writing. In M. Farr (Ed.), Advances in writing research: Vol. 1. Children’s early writing development (pp. 59-126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.zh_TW
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
index.html115 BHTML2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.