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

Diss. Örebro : Örebro universitet, 2007.

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).

No description available.

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

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education