國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	甘甯 Kan, Ning
論文名稱：	共同寫作小組中分工角色與團體寫作成效的關聯 A Study on the Relationship Between Assigned Roles and Interactive Patterns in Collaborative Writing
指導教授：	張珮青 Chang, Pei-Chin
口試委員：	林至誠 Lin, Chih-Cheng 劉怡君 Liu, Yi-Chun 張珮青 Chang, Pei-Chin
口試日期：	2022/08/18
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2022
畢業學年度：	110
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	65
中文關鍵詞：	共同寫作、線上協同寫作、英語寫作教學、指定角色分工法
英文關鍵詞：	Collaborative Writing, Computer-supported collaborative writing (CSCW), Assigned-roles
研究方法:	實驗設計法、比較研究、內容分析法
DOI URL：	http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202201525
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：139 下載：29
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

過去這十年來，隨著 Web 2.0 的線上平台蓬勃發展，線上協同寫作已成為語
言教學的工具。Web 2.0 可讓使用者共同編輯、即時修改線上文件。這種平台的方便性也讓線上協同寫作變得越來越受歡迎。在疫情肆虐下，線上共同寫作也是良好的遠端教學的工具。線上協同寫作有許多優點，像是提升學習者對作文的內容發展、提升團體中建構鷹架學習能力。但是線上協同寫作的成功與否取決於合作時的互動模式。互動模式由兩個要素決定:付出的平均性與互動性。平均性指的是在寫作團體中各個團員貢獻的次數是否平均，互動性指的是團員間有沒有開啟與承接話題的討論。然而，過去的研究顯示，有些協同寫作的小組互動不良，造成共同寫作的成果不如預期。為什麼有些協同寫作互動良好，而有些互動不佳，其中的原因仍然不清楚。此研究調查了兩班的學生的線上協同寫作模式，分成實驗組(共 11 組)與控制組(共 10 組)。實驗組施加了指定的角色給組員扮演，而控制組沒有任何角色，純粹以自然的形式共同寫作。再寫了三次共同寫作後，以最後一次的寫作成績為判斷依據，並加上編碼分析組員在協同過程的討論內容，判斷每個寫作小組的互動模式。該研究發現，實驗組的最後一次的寫作成績跟第一次相比有顯著進步，反觀控制組則沒有顯著進步。此研究進一步探討，指定角色與互動模式的關聯。發現有角色扮演，能促進協同寫作小組的模式，使模式變得正面，且對於作文成績有正向影響。

In the past decade, with the flourishing of online platforms of Web 2.0, online collaborative writing has become a convenient and effective way for language teaching. Web 2.0 allows users to jointly edit and modify online documents. The convenience of this platform has also made online collaborative writing more popular. Since the computer-supported platform is one of the most useful tools for remote teaching, especially with the outbreak of COVID-19, the study aims to explore computer-supported collaborative writing (CSCW) for practical use in language remote teaching field. CSCW has many advantages, such as improving learners' content development of composition, and improving the ability of scaffolding learning in groups. However, the success of CSCW activity depends on the interactive patterns in collaboration. The types of interactive patterns are determined by two elements: the equality (averageness of the effort and contribution by each group member) and the mutuality (the degree of engagement of every member). Past research has shown that some CSCW groups interact poorly, making co-writing less productive. The reasons why some collaborative writing groups works well and some do not are still unclear.
This study investigated two classes of high school students in four times of CSCW activities. The two classes were randomly assigned to be the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group was told to play assigned-roles during the collaboration while the control group did not have roles to play. After participating three times of CSCW activities, the interactive patterns of each writing group and their writing scores were analyzed and calculated based on Li and Kim (2016)’s coding scheme of equality and mutuality.
The results show that the majority of the interactive patterns from the experimental group are positive. The experimental group also improved significantly on their group writing performance while the control group did not improve much. In terms of the connection between assigned roles and interactive patterns, the study found that role-playing can facilitate more discussion during collaboration, thus enhance the positiveness of interactive patterns. By contrast, without any roles, the distribution of interactive patterns is mixed in the control group. Implications are drawn regarding possible implementation of CSCW activities in English writing classroom.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1 Research Background 1
1.1 Computer-supported Collaborative Writing (CSCW) 2
2 The Interactive Patterns in Collaborative Writing (CW) 4
3 Role-taking in CSCW 5
4 Purpose of the Study 6
5 Research Questions 6
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 8
1 An Overview 8
2.1 Writing Quality and Computer-supported Collaborative Writing (CSCW) 10
2.2 Interactive Patterns Observed in Collaborative Writing 11
3.1 Computer-supported Collaborative Learning and Writing 14 
3.2 Collaborative Learning and Collaborative Competence 15
4 Role Playing and Self-regulated Collaborative Learning 15
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 17
1 Participants and Background 17
2.1 Grouping Method 18
2.2 Tools - Google Docs 19
3 Procedure 21
4 Data Collection and Analysis 25 
5 Pilot Study 28
CHAPTER FOUR RESULT AND DISCUSSION 30
1 The Writing Performance of the Experimental Group and the Control Group 30
2.1 The Overview of Interactive Patterns Observed in the Data 32
2.2.1 The Overview Interactive Patterns in the Experimental Group 33
2.2.2 The Expert-Novice Pattern 34
2.2.3 The Collaborative Pattern 37
2.2.4 The Passive Pattern 40
3 The Patterns in the Control Group 41
4 The Connection Between the Interactive Pattern and Writing Performance 44
4.1 A Positive Expert-Novice Pattern in the Experimental Group 45
4.2 The Differences in Collaborative Pattern Between the Two Groups 46
4.3 Negative Patterns and the Writing Performance 48
5 The assigned-role’s Contribution to Group Discussion 48
6 the Effect of Assigned-roles 50
1 Major Findings of the Study – Assigned-Roles and Interactive Patterns 52
2 Pedagogical Implications 53
3 Limitations of the Study 55
4 Conclusion 56
References 58
Appendix A. Rubrics for Narrative Writing 61 
Appendix B. Coding Scheme for equality 62 
Appendix C. Coding Scheme for Mutuality 64 
Appendix D. Analysis of interactions: equality and mutuality 65
                                

Abrams, Zs. I. (2017). Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-year learners of German in Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1259–1270.

Abrams, Zs. I. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 22–42.

Alsamadani, H. A. (2010). The relationship between Saudi EFL students' writing competence, L1 writing proficiency, and self-regulation. European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 53-63.

Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based Collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99.

Borge, M., & White B. (2016) Toward the Development of Socio- Metacognitive Expertise: An Approach to Developing Collaborative Competence. Cognition and Instruction, 34:4, 323-360.

Cesareni, D., Cacciamani, S., & Fujita, N. (2016). Role taking and knowledge building in a blended university course. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 9–39.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51–71.

Ferna ́ndez Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.

Hashemian, M., & Heidari Soureshjani, K. (2011). The interrelationship of auton- omy, motivation, and academic performance of Persian L2 learners in distance education contexts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1, 319–326.

Ibnian, S. S. K. (2017). Writing Difficulties Encountered by Jordanian EFL Learners. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 5(3). Retrieved from https://www.ajouronline.com/index.php/AJHSS/article/view/4785

Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., Brendle, D., & Cress, U. (2017). All in good time: knowledge introduction, restructuring, and development of shared opinions as different stages in collaborative writing. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 195-213.

Li, M., Zhu, W. (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38-53.

Ludvigsen, S., Law, N., Rose, C., & Stahl, G. (2017). Frameworks for mass collaboration, adaptable scripts, complex systems theory, and collaborative writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(2), 127–131.

McDonough, Vleeschauwer J., D., Crawford W. (2018) Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, Volume 74, 109-120.

Noël, S., & Robert, J. M. (2004). Empirical study on collaborative writing: What do co- authors do, use, and like? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 13(1), 63-89.

Rass, R. (2015). Education challenges face Arab students in writing well-developed paragraphs English language teaching. Canadian Center of Science and Education. 8(10), 49-59.

Richards, J., & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.

Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82: 320-337.

Watanabe, Y., Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research 11(2), 121–142.

Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.

Yeh, H.-C. (2014) Exploring how collaborative dialogues facilitate synchronous collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology 18(1), 23–37.

Yeh, S.-W., Lo, J.-J., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative technical writing with procedural facilitation and synchronous discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 397–419.

Zi-gang Ge. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文