The ability to communicate effectively in writing is important not only within the educational system but also in business, professional, and domestic life. Most educators agree that this ability can best be developed through regular practice and they agree, further, that this practice can be given direction and purpose through the use of carefully selected and properly employed marking techniques. Over the years various techniques were developed with a view to increasing the reliability of theme grading; others were designed to reduce the marking load; still others were chiefly concerned with the psychological effect upon the students. But there was no conclusive evidence favouring a specific method which would promote composition improvement. In response to the need for such a method the writer proposed the use of "salient feature" comments. An instructional and marking programme involving four equated groups of Grade Eight students was devised. The two experimental groups had all their practice themes marked with letter grades and brief comments respectively. The corresponding control groups had only one-quarter of their practice themes marked. Initial and final test paragraphs provided the numerical bases for making inter-group comparisons. It was hypothesized that, between the pairs of groups to be compared, if there were no significant mean score differences prior to the practice period there would be no significant mean score differences following it. Analysis of the main body of evidence showed that the null hypothesis was sustained throughout. No advantage for any particular marking method could be clained. In fact, the control groups evidently made as much progress as the others. Supplementary calculations focussed attention on smaller subgroups in restricted ability ranges. Here, apparently, the "salient feature" sub-groups made the most consistent gains. Subjective opinion as well as objective evidence was sought. A majority of teachers and students thought that the composition had improved and, given a choice of several marking plans, expressed a preference for written comments. It seemed reasonable to conclude that, while the "salient feature" comments method did not prove significantly advantageous, it might, nevertheless, merit further study. It was suggested further that the kind of marking may be less important than regular, purposeful practice. Perhaps limited marking techniques could be developed which would not only improve composition but also free teachers for the individualized instruction which may, after all, provide the best answer to the question, "How can we help students reach a standard of achievement in composition which is consistent with the demands of an increasingly complex society?" / Education, Faculty of / Graduate

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hong Kong, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 375-398).

No description available.

This research examined how sixth-grade students utilized evaluations and goals while revising their texts, to determine if those students who were identified as better writers also had more success when revising, and if specific types or configurations of operations lead to more successful revision. A coding system was developed to identify evaluations and goals according to the functions that they served during revision. Evaluations were categorized as either acceptance or rejection evaluations, depending on their judgment of the text. Goals were categorized as text strategy or guidance goals, depending on whether they instituted a specific strategy to counter a perceived problem in the text, or instituted a procedure or action that constituted management of the revision task. / Think-aloud protocols and drafts of compositions provided a trace of students' revision activity. Identification of evaluations and goals by the functions that they served during revision provided a method for monitoring the connection between the process students used in revising and the product (if any) that resulted. Revisions produced were categorized as surface or text-base, with both their accumulative and individual impact on the text assessed. The coding system identified all evaluations and goals, even those that did not result in text changes but that were associated with considerations and attempts. Therefore, all revising behaviors, including emerging skills, were acknowledged. / Results revealed that those students identified as better writers were not better revisors in terms of using evaluations or goals in a manner that resulted in the production of more sophisticated or more effective revisions. Students identified as low to high level writers all experienced various revision difficulties, as reflected by the absence of specific types of evaluations and/or goals that could have facilitated revision, yet were not used. Terminal revising was the common approach and involved reviewing a textual area only once, and setting a limited number of evaluations and goals to address a perceived problem. However, a sub-group of students who were identified as poorer writers did use an iterative revising strategy, which resulted in improved text quality. This strategy involved successive reviews of the text, resulting in the implementation of related multiple evaluations and goals addressing one textual area. / Educators can consider the revising strategies (i.e., terminal and iterative revising) and operations (i.e., functional evaluations and goals) specifically identified in this research to assess how students' revise and to determine what strategies and operations need to be encouraged to foster absent or underdeveloped revision skills. Collaborative student and teacher interactions designed to encourage the utilization of these specific strategies and operations have the potential to lead to more effective revising.

Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Auburn University, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic references (p.142-155).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2006. / Document formatted into pages; contains xx, 239 p. Includes bibliographical references.

手稿複印本. / Thesis (M.A.)--香港中文大學敎育學部. / Shou gao fu yin ben. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 167-179). / Thesis (M.A.)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue jiao yu xue bu. / Chapter 第一章 --- 導言 / Chapter I --- 研究背景 --- p.1 / Chapter II --- 問題陳述 --- p.3 / Chapter III --- 研究目的 --- p.10 / Chapter IV --- 研究架構概述 --- p.12 / Chapter V --- 研究假設 --- p.14 / Chapter VI --- 名詞詮釋 --- p.16 / Chapter VII --- 本研究的重要性 --- p.19 / Chapter VIII --- 研究限制 --- p.20 / Chapter 第二章 --- 文獻綜述 / Chapter I --- 現代一般中文作文的評改方法 --- p.22 / Chapter II --- 教師精批細改 --- p.25 / Chapter III --- 教師符號批改 --- p.30 / Chapter IV --- 同輩互改作文 --- p.38 / Chapter V --- 學生自改作文 --- p.53 / Chapter VI --- 總結 --- p.59 / Chapter 第三章 --- 研究方法和步驟 / Chapter I --- 研究對象 --- p.63 / Chapter II --- 實驗程序 --- p.65 / Chapter III --- 研究工具 --- p.76 / Chapter IV --- 資料整理 --- p.79 / Chapter V --- 資料分析 --- p.81 / Chapter VI --- 預試結果 --- p.84 / Chapter 第四章 --- 實驗結果 / 事前及事後作文測試成績的分析 --- p.87 / 事前與事後寫作態度問卷得分的分析 --- p.98 / 學生對評改的記憶保留得分的分析 --- p.114 / 學生的寫作能力效果保留度測試得分的分析 --- p.116 / 學生作文初稿及定稿的比較分析 --- p.119 / Chapter 第五章 --- 解釋的結論 / Chapter I --- 實驗結果解釋 --- p.126 / Chapter II --- 跟進訪問 --- p.140 / Chapter III --- 摘要與結論 --- p.152 / Chapter IV --- 建議 --- p.163 / 參考書目 --- p.167 / Chapter 附錄:( A ) --- 學生寫作態度問卷 --- p.180 / Chapter ( B ) --- 改文量表 --- p.182 / Chapter ( C ) --- 同輩量表互改舉例 --- p.183 / Chapter ( D ) --- 教師精批細改舉例 教師符號批改舉例 --- p.184 / Chapter ( E ) --- 實驗期間的作文題目 --- p.185 / Chapter ( F ) --- 實驗期間教師教授的讀文篇章 --- p.186 / Chapter ( G ) --- 電腦分析報告 --- p.187

馮祿德. / Thesis (M.A.)--香港中文大學硏究院敎育學部. / Reprint of manuscript. / Feng Lude. / Thesis (M.A.)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue yan jiu yuan jiao yu xue bu. / Chapter 第一章 --- 導 言 --- p.1 / 問題說明 --- p.1 / 有關文獻 --- p.6 / 研究問題 --- p.45 / 假設 --- p.47 / 定義 --- p.50 / Chapter 第二章 --- 研究方法 --- p.57 / 研究設計 --- p.57 / 研究對象 --- p.63 / 研究工具 --- p.64 / 考試程序 --- p.68 / 還卷程序 --- p.70 / 資料蒐集 --- p.78 / 資料分析 --- p.84 / Chapter 第三章 --- 結果與討論 --- p.87 / 兩類考生閱讀理解測驗成績與作文測驗成績的相關研究 --- p.87 / 考查兩類考生閱讀理解能力與寫作表達能力的各項中文測驗結構效度研究 --- p.105 / 兩類考生研究結果的比較 --- p.140 / 閱讀理解能力與寫作表達能力關係的探討 --- p.143 / Chapter 第四章 --- 摘要、結論及建議 --- p.151 / 摘要與結論 --- p.151 / 建議 --- p.166 / 參考文獻 --- p.174 / 附錄 / Chapter 一 --- 香港中學會考和香港高等程度會多考的發展簡史 --- p.178 / Chapter 二 --- 多項選擇題與問答題的比較 --- p.182 / Chapter 三 --- 一九七九年香港中學會考中國語文試卷一試題 --- p.185 / Chapter 四 --- 一九七九年香港中學會考中國語文試卷二試題 --- p.186 / Chapter 五 --- 一九七九年香港中學會考中國語文試卷三部分試題 --- p.197 / Chapter 六 --- 一九七九年香港高等程度會考中文試卷一 --- p.199

謝錫金. / 複印手稿本. / Thesis (M.A.)--香港中文大學硏究院敎育學部. / Fu yin shou gao ben. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 188-). / Xie Xijin. / 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 --- 問題說明 --- p.1 / Chapter 二 --- 有關文獻的綜述 --- p.7 / Chapter 第二章 --- 實驗設計 --- p.21 / Chapter 一 --- 寫作思維過程簡圖 --- p.21 / Chapter 二 --- 解釋和定義 --- p.24 / Chapter 三 --- 研究設計 --- p.31 / Chapter 四 --- 假設 --- p.35 / Chapter 五 --- 研究對象與取樣 --- p.36 / Chapter 六 --- 研究工具 --- p.38 / Chapter 七 --- 實驗程序 --- p.39 / Chapter 八 --- 資料收集與分析 --- p.42 / Chapter 第三章 --- 結果與討論 --- p.50 / Chapter 一 --- 黃君的寫作思維過程的結果私討論 --- p.51 / Chapter 甲 --- 背景因素 --- p.51 / Chapter 乙 --- 環境因素 --- p.54 / Chapter 丙 --- 內在因素 --- p.59 / Chapter 丁 --- 寫作過程因素 --- p.66 / Chapter I --- 寫前構思 --- p.66 / Chapter II --- 設計 --- p.70 / Chapter III --- 寫作 --- p.75 / Chapter IV --- 回顧與最後修訂 --- p.99 / Chapter 戊 --- 綜合討論 --- p.103 / Chapter 二 --- 三個中五學生的寫作思維過程的結果和討論 --- p.108 / Chapter 甲 --- 背景因素 --- p.108 / Chapter 乙 --- 環境因素 --- p.111 / Chapter 丙 --- 內在因素 --- p.112 / Chapter 丁 --- 寫作過程因素 --- p.117 / Chapter 三 --- 四個個案的綜合討論 --- p.152 / Chapter 第四章 --- 結論、涵義及建議 --- p.169 / Chapter 一 --- 結論 --- p.169 / Chapter 二 --- 涵義 --- p.183 / Chapter 三 --- 建議 --- p.186 / 參考書目 --- p.188 / Chapter 附錄 --- 附錄 / Chapter 一 --- 觀察紀錄表 --- p.199 / Chapter 二 --- 寫作行為調查問卷 --- p.200 / Chapter 三 --- 寫作背景問卷 --- p.203 / Chapter 四 --- 四個個案的文章示例 --- p.204