淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1507200910122400
中文論文名稱 合作學習之同儕回應對大學生英語口說能力之影響
英文論文名稱 Effects of Peer Feedback on College Students’ English Speaking Skills in the Process of Cooperative Learning
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生中文姓名 蔡欣倫
研究生英文姓名 Hsin-Lun Tsai
學號 695110170
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2009-06-15
論文頁數 89頁
口試委員 指導教授-王藹玲
委員-鄭鼎耀
委員-林怡弟
中文關鍵字 學生與學生聽寫  同儕回應  合作學習 
英文關鍵字 Student-student Dictation  Peer Feedback  Cooperative Learning 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 本研究主要探討在合作學習過程中,利用同儕回應是否能提升大學生英語口說能力及自信。本研究方法採用資料來源,其包含同儕分數與文字回饋信息、問卷調查、學生小組訪談與課堂觀察。本研究利用學生與學生聽寫活動來分析六十六位大一生在合作學習過程下是否能利用同儕給予之分數與文字上的回饋提升其口說能力與自信。本研究結果顯示,在七個評分項目中,同儕在特定項目中給予越多的回饋信息,其特定項目之進步的程度相對越多。另外,同儕回應能夠提升大學生口說能力,尤其是七個評分項目中之整體表現、發音、態度、速度四項中進步幅度最大。再者,同儕回應能夠幫助大學生建立更多英語口說上的自信,主因在於同儕間地位平等,容易了解彼此口說上之問題且回應方式較為活潑,因此藉由正面之同儕回應能夠幫助大學生建立更多信心。此外,大部分之大學生在給予回應時抱持真誠且客觀之態度,但仍有少部分學生會依自己的感覺或是聽寫之內容來給予主觀的回饋。第四、在給予同儕回應中,不僅僅是接收回應之大學生能提升口說能力,給予回應之大學生亦能透過自省之方式來提升英語能力。第五、合作學習能夠幫助大學生在小組中營造一個良好的學習口說之氣氛,儘管僅僅兩個小組在課後有利用合作學習來練習英語口說。然而,由於參與本研究實驗之大學生過多,同儕回應主要針對整個小組來給予整體回應,而非給予每一位組員回應,因此似乎無法完全地真正了解每位學生口說能力提升之程度。本研究建議老師可利用學生與學生聽寫活動讓每位學生能充分參與且有更多給予學生自主學習之機會,另外,老師可以鼓勵學生多多給予同儕回應,不僅可以幫助同儕學習,也可以達到自省之效果。
英文摘要 This study aims to explore the effects of peer feedback on college students’ English
speaking skills and confidence through cooperative learning. The data resources include the scores from peers, written peer feedback, questionnaires, group interviews and classroom observation. With the student-student dictation conducted in this study to analyze if the sixty-six freshmen of Tamkang University improve their speaking skills and confidence with the scores and the written peer feedback under cooperative learning. The results of this study show that the more feedback the students received on specific aspects of English speaking skills, the more the students improved on specific aspects. Also, peer feedback improved college students’ speaking skills, especially on group overall presentation, pronunciation, attitude and pace, and increased their confidence in speaking English. In addition, most of the college students kept a sincere and objective attitude toward giving feedback however, few students gave subjective feedback depending on personal preferences. Moreover, not only the feedback-receivers improved their speaking skills, but also the feedback-givers gained a lot by reflecting on their own learning while giving feedback. Finally, cooperative learning created a fine learning atmosphere in the classroom. This study suggests that teachers could conduct student-student dictation in class through cooperative learning so as to provide students more opportunities with practicing speaking in class and learning autonomy and encourage students to give more peer feedback so as to help learning by each other.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statements of the Problem 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study 5
1.4 Research Questions 6

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Cooperative Learning 7
2.1.1 Definition of cooperative learning 8
2.1.2 Background and research in cooperative learning 9
2.1.3 Major elements of cooperative learning 12
2.1.4 Major characteristics and benefits in cooperative learning 14
2.1.5 Review of cooperative learning in different fields of academic subjects 15
2.2 Peer Feedback 16
2.3 The Introduction of Student-student Dictation 23

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants 25
3.2 Instruments 26
3.2.1 Content of the peer feedback sheet 27
3.2.2 Questionnaire for the participants 27
3.2.3 Questions for an in-depth group interview 28
3.2.4 Classroom observation 29
3.3 Procedure 30
3.4 Data Collection 33
3.5 Data Analysis 34

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Quantitative Score Results in Four-round Dictations 36
4.2 The Results of Written Peer Feedback 40
4.2.1 The most frequently mentioned written feedback on group overall presentation 41
4.2.2 The most frequently mentioned written feedback on pronunciation 43
4.2.3 The most frequently mentioned written feedback on pace and attitude 45
4.2.4 The second most frequently mentioned written feedback on projection and confidence 47
4.2.5 The second most frequently mentioned written feedback on intonation and self-learning 49
4.2.6 The least frequently mentioned written feedback on stress, fluency and the content of the group oral dictation 50
4.3 Results of Classroom Observation 51
4.4 Results of Group Interviews 52
4.4.1 Participants’ attitudes toward the feedback on upgrading speaking skills 53
4.4.2 Participants’ attitudes toward the feedback on increasing their confidence of speaking English 53
4.4.3 Participants’ attitudes toward accepting peer feedback 54
4.4.4 Participants’ attitudes toward giving peer feedback
54
4.4.5 Participants’ attitudes toward cooperative learning
55
4.4.6 Participants’ attitudes toward using peer feedback as the way of evaluation in class 55
4.5 Results of the Questionnaire 56
4.5.1 The questionnaire results on cooperative learning 57
4.5.2 The questionnaire results on giving peer feedback 58
4.5.3 The questionnaire results about receiving peer feedback 60

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of the Study 69
5.2 Limitation of the Study 73
5.3 Educational Implications 73
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research 75

REFERENCES 76

APPENDICES
Appendix A Peer Feedback Sheet 83
Appendix B 中文問卷 85
Appendix C Questionnaire 87

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 The Timetable of Student-student Oral Dictation 31
Table 2 The Types of Written Feedback Mentioned with Different Degrees 41
Table 3 The Types of Written Feedback on Group Overall Presentation 42
Table 4 The Types of Written Feedback on Pronunciation 43
Table 5 The Types of Written Feedback on Pace and Attitude 45
Table 6 The Types of Written Feedback on Projection and Confidence48
Table 7 The Results on Part One of the Questionnaire 57
Table 8 The Results on Part Two of the Questionnaire 58
Table 9 The Results on Part Three of the Questionnaire 60

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Participants’ Certificate on English General Proficiency Test 26
Figure 2 Procedure of the Study 30
Figure 3 The Average Scores of the Seven Evaluation Items in the Four Rounds of Oral Dictation 37
Figure 4 The Average Score Growth of the Seven Evaluation Items in the Four Rounds of Oral Dictation 38
參考文獻 Abuseileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493-514.
Alavi, S. M., & Kaivanpanah S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners’ achievement in English. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(2), 181-196.
Barrett, J. (1986). The evaluation of teachers. (ERIC Digest No. 12). Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearninghouse on Teacher Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction service No. ED278657)
Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 483-501.
Bejarano, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. J. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Brown, D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersy: Prentice hall Regents.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652.
Carnell, E. (2000). Dialogue, discussion and secondary school students on how others help their learning. In Askew (Ed.) Feedback for Learning (pp.46-61). London: Routledge.
Chaudron, G. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chen, Y. M. (2006). EFL teachers’ action and perception of peer and self- assessment. Paper presented at the Fifteenth International Symposium on English teaching, Taipei, R.O.C.
Chia, H. U. (2007). Exploring Taiwanese college EFL students’ interaction patterns, reading comprehension and reader responses in cooperative learning. Unpublished doctor’s thesis, National Chiayi University, Taiwan.
Cohen, A. (1984). Introspecting about second language learning. Paper presented at the Ninth ILSASH Conference, Netanya, Isarael.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
Dewey, J (1957). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Deutsch, M. (1978). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32, 175-87.
Fathman, A. K., Quinn, M. A., & Kessler, C. (1992). Teaching science to English learners, grade 4-8. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 11, 1-32.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.
Herrington, A., & Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42, 184-199.
Jacob, G. (2003). Combining dictogloss and cooperative learning to promote language learning. The Reading Matrix, 3(1), 1-15.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement, In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.23-30). New York: Praeger Publishers.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning, In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa & A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning (pp.31-44). London: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individual learning (5th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma A. & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment and Education in Higher Education, 31(4), 453-464.
Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10 (1), 1–9.
Kuo, H. (2003). The nature and causes of interlanguage fossilization. A Journal of Education, 4(1). Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/TheSource/issue_2003_spring/kuo.htm.
Li, L., & Steckelberg A. (2004). Using peer feedback to enhance student meaningful learning. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communication and Techology. Retreived March 23, 2009, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED485111&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED485111.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mallows, D. (2002). Non-linearity and the observed lesson. ELT Journal, 56, 3-9.
McGourty, J., Sebastian, C., & Reilly, R. (1997). Incorporating student peer review and feedback into the assessment process. Paper presented at the Best Assessment Process in Engineering Education: A Working Symposium sponsored by National Science Foundation, ABET, and Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, April 1997, Terre Haute, Indiana.
McGroarty, M. (1991). The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in second language instruction. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 13, 127-143.
Nimmannit, S. (1998). Maximizing students’ oral skills: The Asian context. The Language Teacher, 21 (11), 37-39.
Patri, M. (2002). The Influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. The Language Testing, 19(2), 109-131.
Phinney, M. (1996). Exploring the virtual world: Computers in the second language writing classroom. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Piaget, Jean and Inhelder B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235-246.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reigel, D. (2008). Positive feedback in pairwork and its association with ESL course. TESOL Journal, 42(1), 81-98.
Reese-Durham, N. (2005). Peer evaluation as an active learning technique. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(4), 338-345.
Schcolnik, M., & Kol, S. (1999). Using presentation software to enhance language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(3). Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://iteslj.org/ Articles/Schcolnik-Presentation.html
Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sullivan, E. V. (1967). Piaget and the school curriculum: A critical appraisal. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tan, G., Gall, P., Jacobs, G., & Lee, Ch. (1999). Using cooperative learning to integrate thinking and information technology in a content-based writing lesson. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(8). Retrieved August 5, 2008 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tan-Cooperative.html
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vigil, Neddy A., & Oller, John W. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wei, Z. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492 - 528.

論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2009-07-28公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-07-28起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信