學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 幼兒在假裝遊戲中建構共識的後設溝通策略
Young children`s metacommunication strategies in constructing shared meanings in pretend-play作者 郭美杏
Kuo, Mei Hsing貢獻者 黃瓊之
Huang, Chiung Chih
郭美杏
Kuo, Mei Hsing關鍵詞 社會性假裝遊戲
後設溝通
同儕互動
共享意義
social pretend play
metacommunication
peer interaction
shared meaning日期 2011 上傳時間 30-Oct-2012 11:16:31 (UTC+8) 摘要 本篇論文主要在探討漢語幼兒同儕的假裝遊戲中的後設溝通，研究問題如下：1. 孩童在社會性的假裝遊戲(social pretend play)中，會使用哪些後設溝通策略？ 2.當幼兒在建構共享意義(shared meaning)時，哪一個後設溝通策略會是最成功的？參與本研究的兩位女孩同分別為四歲及五歲，總共在她們的托兒所進行兩次錄影。本研究採用Giffin在1984年發表的後設溝通策略架構，總共包含七個分類：(1)直接演出 (enactment), (2) 另有動機的話語 (ulterior conversation), (3) 強調(underscoring), (4) 說故事(storytelling), (5) 提示(prompting), (6) 不言明的建構(implicit pretend structuring), and (7) 直接言明 (overt proposals to pretend)。另外，本研究再加入第八個分類：直接接受 (simple acceptance)。研究發現孩童在他們的社會性假裝遊戲中，最常使用的策略是提示(prompting)，接下來為另有動機的話語 (ulterior conversation)、直接演出 (enactment)、不言明的建構(implicit pretend structuring)。而使用時最可以成功建構分享意義的後設溝通策略已成功率高到低分別為直接接受(Simple acceptance)、強調(underscoring)、另有動機的話語(ulterior conversation)、提示(prompting)以及不言明的建構(implicit pretending structuring)。
The purpose of the present study was to examine how young children metacommunicate to construct shared meaning in social pretend play. The two research questions were: a) what are the metacommunication strategies used in children’s social pretend play with peers? and b) when children work to construct shared meaning, which metacommunication strategy leads to a higher success rate for shared meaning construction? The study included two female participants, Dora and Sally, who were four and five years old respectively. Two recording sessions were conducted during break times at their day care center. The resulting natural speech data was transcribed for further analysis using the CHILDES format. Analysis was conducted using Giffin’s framework of metacommunication strategies, which defines seven categories: (1) enactment, (2) ulterior conversation, (3) underscoring, (4) storytelling, (5) prompting, (6) implicit pretend structuring, and (7) overt proposals to pretend. An eighth category, simple acceptance, was added for the present study. The results showed that the two participants engaged in a large amount of social pretend play, and metacommunication was found to be an on-going process, with one shared meaning developing gradually into the next. Prompting was the most frequently used metacommunication strategy during the play, followed by ulterior conversation, enactment, and implicit pretend structuring. In respect to the second research question, it was found that the metacommunication strategy with the highest rate of success in constructing shared meaning was simple acceptance (the newly added category), followed by underscoring, ulterior conversation, prompting, and implicit pretend structuring. It could be seen from the children’s social pretend play that the participants were developing their cognitive competence (e.g. symbolic thinking), linguistic competence (e.g. attending to others’ speech, producing logical and coherent responses), and social competence (e.g. taking turns, taking perspectives, trying to understand others’ emotions). Studying peer interactions is crucial for understanding what factors are universal in children’s thinking and development, and future studies with larger samples and with participants from more divergent backgrounds are needed in order to advance systematic research on the issues concerned.參考文獻 Bateson, G. Information and codification: A philosophical approach. In G. Bateson & Reusch, J. (Eds), Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1951.Berk, L.E., Mann, T.D., & Ogan, A.T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for the development of self-regulation. In D.G. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 74 – 100). New York: Oxford University Press.Bochner, S., & Jones, J. (2003). Child language development: learning to talk (2nd ed.). London: Whurr Publisher Ltd, 2003.Cook-Gumperz, J., & Kyratzis, A. (2001). Child discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 590-611). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Dunn, J. (1996). Arguing with siblings, friends, and mothers: Developments in relationships and understanding. Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. by Dan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis, & Jiansheng Guo, (pp. 191-204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Eisenberg, A. T. and Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s Use of Verbal Strategies in ResolvingConflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.Erikson, E. H. (1940). Studies in the interpretation of play. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 22, 557-671.Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and daydreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. IX. London: Hogarth (pp. 141-154). (Original publication in 1908).Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Garvey, C., & Berndt, R. (1975). The organization of pretend play. Presented at Structure in Play and Fantasy symposium of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.Giffin, H. (1984). The coordination of meaning in the creation of a shared make-believe reality. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play (pp.73-100). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Göncü, A. (1998). Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner, & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 117-132). London: Routledge. (Reprinted from Human Developement, 1993, 36) Goodwin, M. H., Kyratzis, A. (2007). Children socializing children: practices for negotiating the social order among peers. Research on language and social interaction, 40 (4), 279-289.Gowen, J. (1978). Structural elements of symbolic play of preschool children. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.Howe, N., Petrakos, H., Rinaldi, C. M., & LeFebvre, R. (2005). ‘This Is a Bad Dog, You Know…’: Constructing Shared Meanings during Sibling Pretend Play. Child Development, 76(4), 783-794.Qiu, K. (2007). Metacommunication in Mandarin Mother-Child Pretend Play. Unpublished Master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.O’Connell, B., & Bretherton, I. (1984). Toddler’s play, alone and with Mother: the role of maternal guidance. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play (pp. 337-368). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Parten, M. (1971). Social play among preschool children. In R. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Child’s play. New York: Wiley.Pellegrini, A.D. (1984). The social cognitive ecology of preschool classrooms. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 7, 321-332.Pellegrini, A.D. (1985). Relations between preschool children`s play and literate behavior. In L. Galda & A. Pellegrini, (Eds.), Play, language, and story: The development of children`s literate behavior. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Pellegrini, A.D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A re-examination of the relations between symbolic play and literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 162-175.Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt, 1932.Sanders, K. & Harper, L. (1976). Free play, fantasy behavior in preschool children: Relations among gender, age, season, and location. Child Development. 47, 1182-1185.Singer, J. (1973). The measurement of imaginative predisposition. In D.Palermo (Ed.), The child’s world of make-believe (pp.49-73). New York and London: Academic Press.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and society (pp.79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
98555006
100資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0985550061 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 黃瓊之 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Huang, Chiung Chih en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 郭美杏 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Kuo, Mei Hsing en_US dc.creator (作者) 郭美杏 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Kuo, Mei Hsing en_US dc.date (日期) 2011 en_US dc.date.accessioned 30-Oct-2012 11:16:31 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 30-Oct-2012 11:16:31 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-Oct-2012 11:16:31 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0985550061 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54514 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98555006 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本篇論文主要在探討漢語幼兒同儕的假裝遊戲中的後設溝通，研究問題如下：1. 孩童在社會性的假裝遊戲(social pretend play)中，會使用哪些後設溝通策略？ 2.當幼兒在建構共享意義(shared meaning)時，哪一個後設溝通策略會是最成功的？參與本研究的兩位女孩同分別為四歲及五歲，總共在她們的托兒所進行兩次錄影。本研究採用Giffin在1984年發表的後設溝通策略架構，總共包含七個分類：(1)直接演出 (enactment), (2) 另有動機的話語 (ulterior conversation), (3) 強調(underscoring), (4) 說故事(storytelling), (5) 提示(prompting), (6) 不言明的建構(implicit pretend structuring), and (7) 直接言明 (overt proposals to pretend)。另外，本研究再加入第八個分類：直接接受 (simple acceptance)。研究發現孩童在他們的社會性假裝遊戲中，最常使用的策略是提示(prompting)，接下來為另有動機的話語 (ulterior conversation)、直接演出 (enactment)、不言明的建構(implicit pretend structuring)。而使用時最可以成功建構分享意義的後設溝通策略已成功率高到低分別為直接接受(Simple acceptance)、強調(underscoring)、另有動機的話語(ulterior conversation)、提示(prompting)以及不言明的建構(implicit pretending structuring)。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of the present study was to examine how young children metacommunicate to construct shared meaning in social pretend play. The two research questions were: a) what are the metacommunication strategies used in children’s social pretend play with peers? and b) when children work to construct shared meaning, which metacommunication strategy leads to a higher success rate for shared meaning construction? The study included two female participants, Dora and Sally, who were four and five years old respectively. Two recording sessions were conducted during break times at their day care center. The resulting natural speech data was transcribed for further analysis using the CHILDES format. Analysis was conducted using Giffin’s framework of metacommunication strategies, which defines seven categories: (1) enactment, (2) ulterior conversation, (3) underscoring, (4) storytelling, (5) prompting, (6) implicit pretend structuring, and (7) overt proposals to pretend. An eighth category, simple acceptance, was added for the present study. The results showed that the two participants engaged in a large amount of social pretend play, and metacommunication was found to be an on-going process, with one shared meaning developing gradually into the next. Prompting was the most frequently used metacommunication strategy during the play, followed by ulterior conversation, enactment, and implicit pretend structuring. In respect to the second research question, it was found that the metacommunication strategy with the highest rate of success in constructing shared meaning was simple acceptance (the newly added category), followed by underscoring, ulterior conversation, prompting, and implicit pretend structuring. It could be seen from the children’s social pretend play that the participants were developing their cognitive competence (e.g. symbolic thinking), linguistic competence (e.g. attending to others’ speech, producing logical and coherent responses), and social competence (e.g. taking turns, taking perspectives, trying to understand others’ emotions). Studying peer interactions is crucial for understanding what factors are universal in children’s thinking and development, and future studies with larger samples and with participants from more divergent backgrounds are needed in order to advance systematic research on the issues concerned. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter I: IntroductionChapter II: Literature Review 2.1) Children’s socialization 2.2) Children’s pretend play and social pretend play 2.3) Children’s metacommunication in social pretend playChapter III: Methodology 3.1) Participants 3.2) Settings 3.3) Coding 3.4) Data analysisChapter IV: Results4.1) General results4.2) Metacommunication strategies used in social pretend play4.3) Success and Failure of Metacommunication StrategiesChapter V: DiscussionChapter VI: ConclusionAppendix I: ReferencesAppendix II: Transcription Symbols zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0985550061 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會性假裝遊戲 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 後設溝通 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同儕互動 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 共享意義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) social pretend play en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) metacommunication en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) peer interaction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) shared meaning en_US dc.title (題名) 幼兒在假裝遊戲中建構共識的後設溝通策略 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Young children`s metacommunication strategies in constructing shared meanings in pretend-play en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bateson, G. Information and codification: A philosophical approach. In G. Bateson & Reusch, J. (Eds), Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1951.Berk, L.E., Mann, T.D., & Ogan, A.T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for the development of self-regulation. In D.G. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 74 – 100). New York: Oxford University Press.Bochner, S., & Jones, J. (2003). Child language development: learning to talk (2nd ed.). London: Whurr Publisher Ltd, 2003.Cook-Gumperz, J., & Kyratzis, A. (2001). Child discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 590-611). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Corsaro, W. A. (1985). Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Dunn, J. (1996). Arguing with siblings, friends, and mothers: Developments in relationships and understanding. Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. by Dan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis, & Jiansheng Guo, (pp. 191-204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Eisenberg, A. T. and Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s Use of Verbal Strategies in ResolvingConflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.Erikson, E. H. (1940). Studies in the interpretation of play. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 22, 557-671.Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and daydreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. IX. London: Hogarth (pp. 141-154). (Original publication in 1908).Garvey, C. (1977). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Garvey, C., & Berndt, R. (1975). The organization of pretend play. Presented at Structure in Play and Fantasy symposium of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.Giffin, H. (1984). The coordination of meaning in the creation of a shared make-believe reality. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play (pp.73-100). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Göncü, A. (1998). Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner, & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 117-132). London: Routledge. (Reprinted from Human Developement, 1993, 36) Goodwin, M. H., Kyratzis, A. (2007). Children socializing children: practices for negotiating the social order among peers. Research on language and social interaction, 40 (4), 279-289.Gowen, J. (1978). Structural elements of symbolic play of preschool children. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.Howe, N., Petrakos, H., Rinaldi, C. M., & LeFebvre, R. (2005). ‘This Is a Bad Dog, You Know…’: Constructing Shared Meanings during Sibling Pretend Play. Child Development, 76(4), 783-794.Qiu, K. (2007). Metacommunication in Mandarin Mother-Child Pretend Play. Unpublished Master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.O’Connell, B., & Bretherton, I. (1984). Toddler’s play, alone and with Mother: the role of maternal guidance. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play (pp. 337-368). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Parten, M. (1971). Social play among preschool children. In R. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Child’s play. New York: Wiley.Pellegrini, A.D. (1984). The social cognitive ecology of preschool classrooms. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 7, 321-332.Pellegrini, A.D. (1985). Relations between preschool children`s play and literate behavior. In L. Galda & A. Pellegrini, (Eds.), Play, language, and story: The development of children`s literate behavior. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Pellegrini, A.D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A re-examination of the relations between symbolic play and literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 162-175.Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt, 1932.Sanders, K. & Harper, L. (1976). Free play, fantasy behavior in preschool children: Relations among gender, age, season, and location. Child Development. 47, 1182-1185.Singer, J. (1973). The measurement of imaginative predisposition. In D.Palermo (Ed.), The child’s world of make-believe (pp.49-73). New York and London: Academic Press.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and society (pp.79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. zh_TW
