稿本 / 論文(碩士)--香港中文大學硏究院教育學部,1992. / 參考文獻: leaves 1-17 (2nd group) / 黃振 . / Chapter 第一章 --- 導言 --- p.1 / Chapter 一、 --- 研究背景 --- p.1 / Chapter 二、 --- 問題陳述 --- p.2 / Chapter 三、 --- 研究的目的 --- p.5 / Chapter 四、 --- 研究假設 --- p.6 / Chapter 五、 --- 研究架構概述 --- p.7 / Chapter 六、 --- 本研究的重要性 --- p.8 / Chapter 第二章 --- 文獻綜述 --- p.8 / Chapter 第一節 --- 審題 --- p.8 / Chapter 一、 --- 審題的意義 --- p.9 / Chapter 二、 --- 審題的方法 --- p.9 / Chapter 三、 --- 審題的訓練 --- p.13 / Chapter 第二節 --- 立意 --- p.18 / Chapter 一、 --- 立意的定義 --- p.18 / Chapter 二、 --- 立意的重要 --- p.19 / Chapter 三、 --- 立意的作用 --- p.19 / Chapter 四、 --- 立意的原則 --- p.20 / Chapter 五、 --- 立意的訓練 --- p.23 / Chapter 第三節 --- 選材 --- p.25 / 材料 --- p.26 / Chapter 二、 --- 運材 --- p.29 / Chapter 三、 --- 選材的訓練 --- p.35 / Chapter 第四節 --- 结構 --- p.37 / Chapter 一、 --- 什麼是结構 --- p.38 / Chapter 二、 --- 安排结構的依據 --- p.38 / Chapter 三、 --- 结構的方法 --- p.41 / Chapter 四、 --- 结構的訓練 --- p.52 / Chapter 第五節 --- 措辭 --- p.55 / Chapter 一、 --- 措辭的定義 --- p.55 / Chapter 二、 --- 措辭的功用 --- p.55 / Chapter 三、 --- 措辭的要點 --- p.56 / Chapter 四、 --- 措辭的訓練 --- p.63 / Chapter 第六節 --- 議論文的概述 --- p.64 / Chapter 一、 --- 議論文的含義 --- p.64 / Chapter 二、 --- 議論文的論點 --- p.64 / Chapter 三、 --- 議論文的論據 --- p.65 / Chapter 四、 --- 議論文的論證 --- p.65 / Chapter 五、 --- 議論文的基本结構 --- p.67 / Chapter 第七節 --- 說明文的概述 --- p.68 / Chapter 一、 --- 說明文的含義 --- p.68 / Chapter 二、 --- 說明文的方法 --- p.69 / Chapter 三、 --- 說明文的要求 --- p.70 / Chapter 四、 --- 說明文的寫法 --- p.71 / Chapter 五、 --- 論說文的措辭 --- p.72 / Chapter 第三章 --- 研究方法和步驟 --- p.75 / Chapter 一、 --- 研究對象 --- p.75 / Chapter 二、 --- 研究工具 --- p.75 / Chapter 三、 --- 實施程序 --- p.79 / Chapter 四、 --- 資料整理 --- p.87 / Chapter 五、 --- 資料分析 --- p.88 / Chapter 六、 --- 預試结果 --- p.89 / Chapter 七、 --- 研究限制 --- p.95 / Chapter 第四章 --- 測試结果及结論 --- p.94 / Chapter 一、 --- 測試结果 --- p.94 / Chapter 二、 --- 结論 --- p.102 / 參考書籍、論文、期刊 --- p.1 / 附 錄： / Chapter 一、 --- 寫作態度問卷 --- p.7 / Chapter 二、 --- 基本語文知識測試 --- p.9 / Chapter 三、 --- 學生作品 --- p.15

何萬貫. / 據手稿本影印. / Thesis (M.A.)--香港中文大學敎育學院. / Ju shou gao ben ying yin. / He Wanguan. / Thesis (M.A.)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue jiao yu xue yuan. / Chapter 第一章 --- 導言 --- p.1 / Chapter 一 --- 問題說明 --- p.1 / Chapter 二 --- 有關文獻的綜述 --- p.12 / Chapter 第二章 --- 寫作教學設計的理論基礎　　 --- p.17 / Chapter 一 --- 寫作內容與寫作形式的教學 --- p.20 / Chapter 二 --- 寫作資料的教學 --- p.45 / Chapter 三 --- 寫作技巧的訓練與語法、修辭的教學 --- p.54 / Chapter 四 --- 寫作批改的教學　　　　 --- p.66 / Chapter 第三章 --- 寫作教學的實驗設計　　　　 --- p.73 / Chapter 一 --- 假設 --- p.73 / Chapter 二 --- 定義 --- p.76 / Chapter 三 --- 研究對象與取樣 --- p.81 / Chapter 四 --- 研究工具 --- p.81 / Chapter 五 --- 研究設計 --- p.88 / Chapter 六 --- 實驗程序 --- p.89 / Chapter 七 --- 資料收集與分析 --- p.99 / Chapter 第四章 --- 結果與討論 --- p.107 / Chapter 一 --- 實驗一的結果與討論　　 --- p.108 / Chapter 二 --- 實驗二的結果與討論　　 --- p.111 / Chapter 三 --- 實驗三的結果與討論　　 --- p.120 / Chapter 四 --- 實驗一、實驗二和實驗三的小結 --- p.123 / Chapter 五 --- 實驗四的結果與討論 --- p.126 / Chapter 六 --- 四項實驗的總結　 --- p.150 / Chapter 第五章 --- 摘要、結論及建議 --- p.153 / Chapter 一 --- 摘要與結論　 --- p.153 / Chapter 二 --- 建議 --- p.157 / 參考書目 --- p.165 / 附錄 --- p.184 / Chapter 一 --- 教案a、教案b、教案c、教案d --- p.184 / Chapter 二 --- 評分準則一 --- p.194 / Chapter 三 --- 評分準贍二 --- p.195 / Chapter 四 --- 課外閱讀資料兩份 --- p.199 / Chapter 五 --- 符號界定說明書　 --- p.202 / Chapter 六 --- 符號改文作文紙　　　　 --- p.205 / Chapter 七 --- 符號改文法的批改示範　 --- p.206 / Chapter 八 --- 意見書 --- p.207

published_or_final_version / Chinese / Master / Master of Philosophy

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of the prewriting activities of class discussion and paired-student-interaction on the voluntary writing decisions of fourth graders. The sample consisted of 355 subjects: 185 males and 170 females. All subjects were fourth graders and attended seven Schools randomly selected from all elementary schools in a midwestern city school system.Class discussion, paired-student-interaction, and a control condition of no prewriting experience formed the three levels of the independent variable. The dependent variable consisted of whether or -riot the subject chose to participate in a writing activity. Grade level placement, time of clay, writing stimulus, and length of prewriting activity were control variables. Subjects were randomly assigned to the three treatment groups.The chi-square (x2) test statistic for equality of three proportions was used to test each of the following null hypotheses at the .05 level of significance.H01: There is no statistically significant difference among the three proportionsH02: of subjects choosing the writing activity corresponding co the three treatment groups for the male subjects. There is no statistically significant difference among the three proportions cf subjects choosing the writing activity corresponding to the three treatment groups for the female subjects.Ho1 was not rejected. There was no significant difference among the proportions of males choosing to write from the three treatment groups. H02 was rejected (P<-05). Post hoc analyses comparing pairs of proportions for the female subjects indicated a significant difference between_ the class discussion treatment and the control condition. The proportion of girls in the Control Group choosing to write was significantly larger than the proportion of girls in the Class Discussion Group choosing to write.These results suggest that:1. Oral language prewriting experiences have a differential effect on the willingness and females to write.2. Class discussion and paired-student-interaction do not have an effect on the writing decisions of fourth grade boys.3. Class discussion has a negative effect on the willingness of fourth grade girls to write.

This study investigated interaction effects between the type and amount of teacher-written feedback, the sex of the subjects, and the degree of focus, organization, and development in two revised drafts of a 400-word description essay written by 43 college students in two sections of a freshman composition course taught by one instructor.Subjects in each section were randomly assigned to four different treatment groups to receive teacher-written comments or questions on their initial drafts and on their two revisions, each written in two 50-minute periods. Treatments were as follows: (1) Selective Comments were a terminal paragraph of specific suggestions for improving focus, organization, and development in the next draft. (2) Extensive Comments were a terminal paragraph of specific suggestions; specified errors in spelling, punctuation, agreement, and usage were noted in the margins. (3) Selective Questions about focus, organization, and development were written in the margins. (4) Extensive Questions about focus, organization, and development were written in the margins, and specified errors in spelling, punctuation, agreement, and usage were noted in the margins.Three dependent variables (focus, organization, and development) were measured on separate five-point scales by two raters. A 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 multivariate analysis of variance revealed two significant two-way interactions at the .05 level.The interaction between revision and sex showed that in response to teacher-written feedback on initial drafts, the males significantly improved their focus, organization, and development scores on the first revision, but the females improved only their focus and development scores. The interaction between revision and comment type showed that the Comment Groups improved their focus, organization, and development scores on the first revision, but the Question Groups improved only their focus and organization scores.A second revision (in response to teacher-written comments and questions and four 50-minute periods of practice in improving focus, organization, and development in sample student essays) showed no significant improvement over the first revision. There were also no significant differences between Selective Groups (no mechanical errors marked) and Extensive Groups (specified errors in spelling, punctuation, agreement, and usage noted).

This research describes the revisions made in expressive and persuasive compositions by fifteen superior and fifteen randomly selected grade nine students. Each student wrote four papers: a rough draft of an assignment designed to elicit an expressive composition; two to four days later, a revision of the expressive first draft; a rough draft of an assignment designed to elict a persuasive composition; and, finally, a revision of the persuasive first draft. All the revisions made by the students were scored using a taxonomy of revision operations. Three research questions guided the analysis to determine whether there were differences in the number and kind of revisions between the expressive and persuasive writing modes, between the superior and randomly selected ability groups, or between the first and second drafts. Few statistically significant differences were found among the variables measured. Both ability groups revised expressive writing in much the same ways. About three quarters of revisions in both writing modes involved small units of texts. Over half were surface revisions of spelling, tense, number or modality, abbreviation, punctuation or format. One third were meaning preserving changes that did not affect the meaning of the text. In persuasive writing, the superior ability group made significantly fewer revisions. Both ability groups, writing in both modes, performed about three quarters of all revisions during the second writing session while working on the second draft. The results of this research offer little evidence of mode or ability related differences in the number or kind of revisions performed on sample essays. Other than fewer revisions in persuasive writing by superior students, no consistent relation was found between rates or kinds of revision and ability scores. Few writers were observed to use revision effectively to reformulate and improve compositions as do mature, experienced writers. Most revisions performed by this ninth grade sample dealt with surface details. At this age level, it appears, revision is used as a surface and word editing process performed at the end of a writing project. / Education, Faculty of / Language and Literacy Education (LLED), Department of / Graduate

Submitted in fulfillment for the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Education in the Department of Didactics in the Faculty of Education at the University of Zululand, 1994. / This study investigates the teaching of English composition in Zulu secondary schools which are in the KwaZulu Department of Education and Culture. Of special importance in this study is to determine the extent to which insights from composition research have informed classroom practice regarding composition teaching in a sample of secondary schools. In assessing the current state of composition teaching in KwaZulu, a two-pronged approach is followed: Linguistics and Didactics. The analysis is underpinned by three linguistic theories of composition (current-traditional, expressionistic and social) and five didactic principles: individualisation, socialisation, control, active participation and motivation. A questionnaire was administered to 68 teachers of English as a Second Language (ESL) out of the 100 targeted ESL teachers drawn from three circuits: Umlazi North, Umlazi South and Umbumbulu. To place the study of composition teaching in didactic context, Chapter 2 contains a formulation and substantiation of the five didactic principles: individualisation, socialisation, control, active participation and motivation. In essence, these principles are used as yardsticks to explain what constitutes effective teaching and learning. Regarding the linguistic dimension of the study, Chapter 3 outlines three linguistic theories (current-traditional, expressionistic and social). Each of these-theooesriabased on a different epistemological and philosophical orientation, and, consequently, each results in a different composition paradigm or model. Chapter 4 presents a theoretical discussion of the basic tenets of the process approach to composition writing - an eclectic approach which captures the essential features of both the expressionistic and social composition paradigms. The process approach is presented as a didactically-justifiable approach to composition writing which promotes all strategies, techniques and methods which are in line with the expressionistic and social composition paradigms. In this approach, the current-traditional composition paradigm is negated. Chapter 5 presents qualitative and quantitative results of the empirical study. The major findings of this study are:- o the need to teach composition writing using techniques that accommodate individual learner needs, fears and frustrations (and sometimes joy) regarding composing in a second language, e.g., English. o the need to harness and channel peer pressure positively by making learners work in peer groups during all the stages of the writing process; planning, drafting and revision. In this context, learners are socialised as they collaborate rather than compete to successfully produce composition pieces that communicate effectively. o the need to abandon the dominant current-traditionalcomposition paradigm in favour of the expressionistic and social paradigms which encompass techniques associated with the process approach - as against the product approach - to composition teaching. o the need to address composition teaching problems emanating, mainly from the Apartheid education dispensation regarding black schools, e.g., overcrowding and high teacher - pupil ratios which are demotivating factors militating against efficient composition teaching. Chapter 6 uses the five didactic principles as criteria to assess the didactic efficacy of linguistic theories and current practices regarding the teaching of composition writing. With regards to individualisation and socialisation didactic principles, the results are not promising. Control and motivation presented results which were negative and positive in some respects. The results were positive regarding active participation didactic principle. Chapter 7 places the empirical results of the study in linguistic context. It uses teachers' responses regarding their use of certain composition techniques to establish the dominant composition paradigm. The analysis shows that the current-traditional paradigm dominates. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the damaging long-term effects of the current-traditional paradigm of composition writing. Chapter 8 concludes this study with in-depth recommendations to teachers, teacher educators and administrators who have all been identified as agents who frequently act as catalysts to promote educational change. The five didactic principles are used as a reference framework for the recommendations. In other words, for each of the five didactic principles, there are recommendations for teachers, teacher educators and administrators.

No description available.

In this thesis, I examine the influence of institutional control on three teachers' and twelve linguistically and culturally diverse childrens' perceptions and constructions of literacy meaning making in English and French in two grade six English and in two grade six French classrooms in the province of Quebec. The children in this study represent a cultural and linguistic mosaic of new arrivals, second-generation immigrant and native Montreal families that include Cambodian, East Indian, French, Italian, Lebanese and Portuguese families. Similarly, the three teachers come from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds that include a native Montreal anglophone, an immigrant from Egypt who is fluent in Arabic, English and French, and a second-generation Italian Quebecer who is fluent in Italian, English and French. The diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the participants add a further dimension to the research project, that is, an understanding of the dialogic encounters between multilingual children and teachers during literacy events in two languages and two classroom contexts. / I draw from Halliday's (1978, 1985) social theory of language use, Bakhtin's (1981, 1984) dialogical theory of discourse and Vygotsky's (1978, 1981, 1986) socio-cultural theory of language and learning to provide a theoretical lens for viewing the childrens' appropriation of literacy meaning making practices. I audiotaped, transcribed and interpreted the literacy events, teachers' discourse and discursive practices and the childrens' literate actions and artifacts for emerging patterns. In addition, interviews were transcribed, coded for emerging patterns and interpreted as socially negotiated texts. / The findings led me to four major conclusions. First, while institutional controls such as textbooks, programs, evaluation, and teacher beliefs about literacy continue to maintain power of literacy meaning making practices in these four classroom contexts, the reconstruction and negotiation of this power varies across the classroom contexts and amongst the teachers and children. Second, the teachers' discourse and discursive practices, as well as, situational complexities such as the intersections of cultures, communities, classrooms and languages shape the childrens' literacy perceptions, interpretations and constructions in English and French within and across the classroom contexts. Third, teaching practices for literacy meaning making are neither solely analytical or experiential nor are they solely explicit or implicit. The three teachers' literacy practices appear to be more along a continuum than a dichotomy, that is, they appear to be local, strategic and contexts-related. Fourth, the recognition of a plurality of literacies suggest that childrens' cultural stances and viewpoints need to be considered, as well as, the kinds of literacy experiences they are and are not being asked to engage in their English and French classrooms.