published_or_final_version / abstract / Linguistics / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

This research project studied a class of high school 11th and 12th grade writing students, for one semester, as they learned to use word processors for composing and editing assignments. The goals of the study were to (a) determine whether the use of a word processor created a special learning environment, (b) document the learning environment created, (c) document the resultant student word processing concepts, schemata and strategies, and (d) document the effects on the writing of students. Five predictions, based on research on language thought and symbol systems, and the application of a theoretical model formed the basis for observations. The predictions were tested by collecting and analyzing student writing and observational data. Student concepts, schemata and strategies were documented through use of the checklists and through observation. Pre- and post-student writing samples were matched and analyzed using individual T-tests, ANOVA and MANCOVA to determine any impact on writing due to the use of word processors. Questionnaires provided background information on English teacher and student writing/word processing backgrounds. Findings indicate support for the research model and predictions 1-4. The research model was found to be useful in organizing data and summarizing prediction results, and may offer assistance to teachers and researchers who want to study the impact of microcomputers from a total learning environment perspective.

This study provides a description of the writing done by Freshman English students in classes other than English at The University of Arizona. The study involved three aspects of observation and documentation of writing habits: a Questionnaire administered to 1,442 students, a Writing Checklist completed by twenty-three students over a one week period, and case study interviews of five students. All three aspects were considered in the findings for the following research questions: (1) What kinds of writing tasks are students doing in classes other than English? (2) How frequent are these tasks? (3) What quantities of writing are being done? (4) To what audiences are the students writing? The population for the study is representative of the university. The task of Taking notes was the most frequently occurring by far. Journals and Creative writing were the least frequent, also by a wide margin. Students felt that teachers were more concerned with content than with presentation. Little in-class time was spent on pre-writing activities. The highest responses were to questions about students' values and attitudes concerning writing. More school writing seems to take place on Monday and Wednesday, with Friday the lowest week day work response. Little work in writing occurs on the weekend. All three aspects point to similar conclusions: students are not writing very much, they are not writing in very many different modes, they are not getting very much guidance in their writing, and they are not getting very much affirmation for writing as a valid cognitive skill in the classroom. Some students are receiving some of these benefits, but the majority of university students are not. Little research has been done on university students to determine how much and what kinds of writing they are doing in classes other than English. If our society continues to value writing as an important skill, universities must re-examine the role of writing in college classes. Without the process of discovery that occurs when writing, the student's education and cognitive growth are greatly limited. Writing is a valuable cognitive aid that must be used in all departments.

Mass media such as television, video players, video games, compact disks, and the computers are commonplace in current American culture. For English as a Second Language children, television may be the only source of English in the home serving as models of grammar, syntax, story structure. An investigation was made using English as a Second Language (ESL) kindergarteners, the classroom writing center, participant-observation, teacher as researcher, and case study methodology to investigate the following questions: Do ESL kindergarten children use media in their writing? If so, how do they use media in their writing? Upon examination of the data, it was found that all these ESL children did use media in the writing process. The function and form of the media references varied from child to child. Media was a cultural context for the childrenÕs social interactions. Oral language (with and without media references) not only informed the writing for some, but also served: to initiate, participate in, and sustain social relationships with peers. Findings indicated that two case study subjects used social dialogue as a separate operation from the production of a written story. Language informed the writing but it also had a socialization function in addition to what the writing needs were. The social aspects of literacy beyond language used to inform the writing is a topic suggested for further research.

The purpose of this study was to identify and compare specific writing assignments provided in the four basal mathematics textbook series, grades six through eight, accepted by the state of Texas in 1990. The student and teachers' editions by each publisher were analyzed (1) for the total number and types of writing assignments provided, (2) to compare how the writing assignments compared with the four purposes of writing mandated in the English Language Arts Framework, Kindergarten through Grade 12 for the state of Texas, (3) to compare how the writing assignments compared with the recommendations for communication opportunities stated in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics for grades five through eight, and (4) to compare the number and types of writing assignments among the four publishers. The total number of writing assignments varied among publishers ranging from 151 to 316 in the student editions and from 147 to 523 in the teacher's editions. The findings of this study indicate that from 80 to 98 percent of the writing assignments in the student editions and from 72 to 96 percent of the writing assignments in the teacher's editions corresponded to the Informative purpose of writing. Very few writing assignments were provided corresponding to the Literary, Expressive, and Persuasive purposes of writing. The writing assignments corresponding to the NCTM recommendations varied among publishers. Writing assignments dealing with modeling mathematical situations ranged from 14 to 66 percent in the student editions and from 24 to 39 percent in the teacher's editions. Writing assignments focusing on understanding and definitions ranged 15 to 61 percent in the student editions and from 31 to 53 percent in the teacher's editions. Writing assignments focusing on interpretation and application ranged from 5 to 29 percent in the student editions and from 10 to 15 percent in the teacher's editions.

過去二十年見證了一股有關第二語言寫作反饋的研究。由此，對學生的寫作所作出不同方式和類別反饋的效果，也得出了一些啟迪（例如Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Sheen,2007; van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2008; 2012）。然而，這些研究存在著明顯的不足。首先，有關的研究往往是都集中於大學程度的反饋。雖然有些研究是關乎中學方面的，但為數不多；有關小學寫作反饋作用的研究更是鳳毛麟角。從研究所得出有關第二語言寫作反饋的方式，究竟是否可以應用於小學方面，則有待探索。其次，現時的研究大都是採取受控實驗方式的設計，所得出的結果都是"非情境性"和"非社會性"的（Goldstein, 2006, 頁185）；因此就教師所作反饋方式的選擇和學生的反應等問題，未能提供充足的資料。第三，有關研究大都是關於反饋行為本身，而不是關乎教師實際的工作情境所作的反饋。也很少注意在文化和制度的局限（例如機構的意識形態和教師個人的教學經驗）之下，如何可以有效地在反饋上作出改變。 / 為了填補這方面研究的空白，這研究超越了反饋本身，並在更廣泛的社會文化情境中，從社會文化活動理論的角度（ Engeström ，1987）試圖探討兩名小學教師在他們各自的教學情境中，如何運用替代反饋策略（ AFS ），以及教學情境對運用替代反饋策略的影響。除了探討教師改變反饋實踐的動力外，本研究也揭示AFS 與學生態度之間的互動、以及其對學生寫作表現的影響。同時也考慮到社會文化因素對教師在一般教室中實踐AFS 的潛在影響。 / 這種縱向案例研究的方法，涉及兩名在香港一所小學任教的教師如何在他們的小學六年級課堂中實施AFS。蒐集數據的方法包括：訪問校長、科主任、教師和學生，觀課，學生問卷調查，以及寫作的前測和後測。 / 研究結果顯示學生對寫作表現出更積極的態度，他們的表現有著統計學上顯著的改善。此外，結果也顯示社會文化會影響教師在學生寫作上實施AFS。 / 這項研究的結果意味著，於社會文化和活動理論有限的研究上，不論在理論、實踐和研究方面，都作出了一定的貢獻；同時也提升了我們對替代反饋策略如何在本地課堂中予以實踐的理解。 / The past two decades have witnessed a surge of research into feedback in L2 writing, and as a result, insights have been gained regarding the potential of various forms and types of written feedback in responding to student writing (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Sheen, 2007; van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2008; 2012). There are, however, conspicuous gaps in the research base. Firstly, research to date tends to have focused on feedback in college-level setting. There are studies, though few, that investigate feedback in secondary contexts. Little is known about the role of feedback in primary school settings. Whether the prescribed methods of feedback in L2 writing derived from research can be applied in the primary contexts is yet to be explored. Secondly, the extensive body of existing research has adopted controlled experimental designs, resulting in research being "noncontextual and nonsocial" (Goldstein, 2006, p.185), hence offering little information such as the reasons of the teachers’ feedback options and students’ reaction to teacher feedback. Thirdly, the focus of the bulk of research is primarily on the act of feedback per se rather than teachers’ implementation of feedback in their specific work contexts. Little attention has been paid to how change in feedback can be effectively implemented in the face of cultural and institutional constraints (e.g., the ideology of the institutions and the educational experiences of the individuals in the teaching context). / To fill the research gaps identified, the study goes beyond feedback per se and situates feedback within the wider sociocultural context, in an attempt to explore the two primary teachers’ endeavour to implement alternative feedback strategies (AFS) in their teaching contexts and the contextual influence on how AFS are enacted within the context of primary education from a sociocultural activity theory perspective (Engeström, 1987). In addition to exploring the teachers’ impetus of change in their feedback practice, this study aims to shed light on the interplay between AFS and student attitude as well as its effects on the writing performance of the students. It also takes into account the potential influence of sociocultural factors on the teachers’ implementation of AFS in the natural classroom setting. / This longitudinal mixed-method case study involved two teachers from a primary school in Hong Kong, implementing AFS in writing for one academic year in their Primary 6 classroom. Data sources included interviews with administrators, teachers and students, classroom observations, student questionnaires and pre-and post-writing tasks. The results of the study indicate that students exhibited a more positive attitude to writing and they have achieved a statistically significant gain in their overall writing performance. It was also found that the sociocultural setting mediated the teachers’ implementation of AFS in writing. / A number of implications have surfaced from the study, which are discussed in relation to theory, practice and research. The study contributes to the literature by adding to the limited research base on feedback informed by sociocultural and activity theory, as well as enhancing our understanding of how alternative feedback strategies can be truly put into practice in the local writing classrooms. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Mak, Wing Wah Pauline. / Thesis (Ed.D) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2014. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 201-214). / Abstracts also in Chinese. / Mak, Wing Wah Pauline.

據手稿本影印. / Thesis (M.A.)--香港中文大學硏究院敎育學部. / Ju shou gao ben ying yin. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-106). / Thesis (M.A.)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue yan jiu yuan jiao yu xue bu. / Chapter 第一章 --- 導言 --- p.1 / Chapter 一 --- 寫作教學的問題 --- p.1 / Chapter 二 --- 新加坡語文教育概況 --- p.4 / Chapter 三 --- 研究目的 --- p.7 / Chapter 第二章 --- 研究方法 --- p.9 / Chapter 一 --- 詞義界定 --- p.9 / Chapter 二 --- 依據和準則 --- p.11 / Chapter 三 --- 研究對象 --- p.12 / Chapter 四 --- 資料收集 --- p.14 / Chapter 五 --- 研究限制 --- p.15 / Chapter 第三章 --- 結果與討論 --- p.18 / Chapter 一 --- 語法意義 --- p.21 / Chapter 二 --- 詞彙意義 --- p.53 / Chapter 第四章 --- 結 論 / 參考書目 --- p.101

曹綺雯. / "2000年6月" / 論文 (哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2000. / 參考文獻 (leaves 114-122) / 附中英文摘要. / "2000 nian 6 yue" / Cao Qiwen. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2000. / Can kao wen xian (leaves 114-122) / Fu Zhong Ying wen zhai yao. / Chapter 第一章 --- 導論 / Chapter 第一節 --- 硏究意義 --- p.1 / Chapter 第二節 --- 研究目的及硏究問題 --- p.3 / Chapter 第三節 --- 名詞界定 --- p.4 / Chapter 第二章 --- 文獻綜述 / Chapter 第一節 --- 動機槪述 / Chapter 一. --- 動機的性質 --- p.7 / Chapter 二. --- 動機的形成 --- p.9 / Chapter 第二節 --- 動機的分類 --- p.13 / Chapter 第三節 --- 寫作動機槪述 / Chapter 一. --- 寫作心理與寫作動機 --- p.17 / Chapter 二. --- 西方心理學關於動機的探索 --- p.17 / Chapter 三. --- 綜述中國有關文學創作心理動力與情意的關係--- --- p.25 / Chapter 第四節 --- 激發寫作動機的方法及須注意的地方 --- p.28 / Chapter 第三章 --- 研究設計 / Chapter 第一節 --- 硏究對象和範疇 --- p.39 / Chapter 第二節 --- 研究問題的架構 --- p.39 / Chapter 第三節 --- 硏究方法 --- p.40 / Chapter 第四章 --- 影響香港中學生寫作動機的各項因素 / Chapter 第一節 --- 社會方面的因素- --- p.50 / Chapter 第二節 --- 家庭方面的因素 --- p.51 / Chapter 第三節 --- 學校方面的因素 --- p.55 / Chapter 第四節 --- 學生個人方面的因素 --- p.69 / Chapter 第五章 --- 各項因素構成香港中學生不同類別的寫作動機--- --- p.86 / Chapter 第六章 --- 各項因素爲何影響香港初中學生的寫作動機 --- p.96 / Chapter 第七章 --- 研究結論及建議 --- p.100 / Chapter 第八章 --- 研究局限 --- p.113 / 參考書目 --- p.114 / 附錄一晤談時的檢視細項 --- p.123 / 附錄二個人寫作記錄 --- p.125 / 附錄三學生問卷調查設計 --- p.127 / 附錄四學生調查問卷 --- p.130 / 附錄五學生調查問卷統計結果 --- p.133 / 附錄六與學生晤談記錄 --- p.139

Chan, Ying Shan. / Thesis submitted in: October 2006. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 112-117). / Abstracts in English and Chinese; appendix also in Chinese. / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --- p.i / ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH --- p.ii / ABSTRACT IN CHINESE --- p.iv / LIST OF TABLES --- p.v / LIST OF FIGURES --- p.vi / Chapter CHAPTER ONE --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- Statement of Problem --- p.3 / Chapter 1.3 --- Purpose and Method of Study --- p.4 / Chapter 1.4 --- Significance of the Study --- p.6 / Chapter 1.5 --- Organization of the Dissertation --- p.7 / Chapter CHAPTER TWO --- LITERATURE REVIEW --- p.8 / Chapter 2.1 --- Introduction --- p.8 / Chapter 2.2 --- Previous Research on Planning and Oral Performance --- p.9 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Conceptual Framework of Planning Studies --- p.9 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Aspects of Linguistic Performance --- p.10 / Chapter 2.3 --- The Role of Planning in Writing --- p.13 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Writing Models --- p.14 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- The Role of L2 in Writing Models --- p.16 / Chapter 2.3.3 --- The Role of L1 in L2 Writing --- p.18 / Chapter 2.4 --- Different Types of Planning --- p.22 / Chapter 2.5 --- The Importance of Planning --- p.23 / Chapter 2.6 --- The Relationship between Planning and Written Performance --- p.24 / Chapter 2.6.1 --- Planning Types --- p.26 / Chapter 2.6.2 --- Research on Pre-task Planning --- p.26 / Chapter 2.6.3 --- Research on Online Planning --- p.27 / Chapter 2.6.4 --- Other Research --- p.28 / Chapter 2.7 --- Chapter Summary --- p.29 / Chapter CHAPTER THREE --- METHODOLOGY --- p.30 / Chapter 3.1 --- Introduction --- p.30 / Chapter 3.2 --- Safeguards for the Research Design --- p.31 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Classroom Situation --- p.32 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- Purposeful Sampling --- p.33 / Chapter 3.2.3 --- Voluntary Participation and Guarantee of Anonymity --- p.33 / Chapter 3.3 --- The Participants --- p.33 / Chapter 3.4 --- Sources of Data --- p.38 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Pre-task Questionnaires --- p.39 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Written Products --- p.39 / Chapter 3.4.3 --- Reflective Questionnaires --- p.40 / Chapter 3.4.4 --- Semi-structured Interviews --- p.40 / Chapter 3.5 --- Procedures of Data Collection --- p.41 / Chapter 3.5.1 --- Selecting the Subjects --- p.41 / Chapter 3.5.2 --- Gathering the Basic Information of the Participants --- p.42 / Chapter 3.5.3 --- Conducting Pilot Studies --- p.43 / Chapter 3.5.4 --- Writing Sessions --- p.44 / Chapter 3.5.5 --- Semi-structured Interviews --- p.47 / Chapter 3.5.6 --- Collecting Questionnaires and Written Products --- p.48 / Chapter 3.6 --- Analysis of the Data --- p.48 / Chapter 3.6.1 --- Eliciting the Questionnaires and Interviews --- p.48 / Chapter 3.6.2 --- Analyzing the Written Products --- p.49 / Chapter 3.6.3 --- Processing the Data --- p.52 / Chapter 3.7 --- Chapter Summary --- p.52 / Notes --- p.53 / Chapter CHAPTER FOUR --- RESULTS --- p.55 / Chapter 4.1 --- Introduction --- p.55 / Chapter 4.2 --- Effects of the Medium of Planning on Written Performance --- p.55 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- The Effects of Task Sequences on Written Performance --- p.55 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- The Effects of the Medium of Planning without the Consideration of Proficiency --- p.57 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- The Effects of the Medium of Planning with the Consideration of Proficiency --- p.59 / Chapter 4.2.4 --- The Effects of the Medium of Planning and Proficiency Level on Written Performance --- p.65 / Chapter 4.3 --- The Comparison between Two Proficiency Groups on Each Task --- p.67 / Chapter 4.4 --- Questionnaires and Interviews --- p.73 / Chapter 4.5 --- Chapter Summary --- p.75 / Chapter CHAPTER FIVE --- FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION --- p.77 / Chapter 5.1 --- Introduction --- p.77 / Chapter 5.2 --- The Relationship between the Medium of Planning and Written Performance --- p.77 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- The Effects of the Medium of Planning on Fluency --- p.78 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- The Effects of the Medium of Planning on Accuracy --- p.88 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- The Effects of the Medium of Planning on Complexity --- p.92 / Chapter 5.3 --- Comparison of the Two Proficiency Groups on Each Task --- p.94 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Two Groups Performing in English Task --- p.94 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Two Groups Performing in Chinese Task --- p.96 / Chapter 5.4 --- Chapter Summary --- p.100 / Chapter CHAPTER SIX --- "CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIOINS AND RECOMMENDATIONS" --- p.102 / Chapter 6.1 --- Introduction --- p.102 / Chapter 6.2 --- Conclusion of the Study --- p.102 / Chapter 6.3 --- Implications for Teachers --- p.105 / Chapter 6.3.1 --- Ways to Improve Fluency --- p.106 / Chapter 6.3.2 --- Ways to Improve Accuracy --- p.108 / Chapter 6.4 --- Limitations and Recommendations --- p.109 / Chapter 6.5 --- Chapter Summary --- p.110 / REFERENCES --- p.112 / APPENDICES --- p.118