用思考地圖教導國小學生外語寫作｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	邱麗珍 LI-CHEN CHIU
論文名稱：	用思考地圖教導國小學生外語寫作 Teaching EFL Writing to Elementary Students through Thinking Maps
指導教授：	簡紅珠
口試委員:
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：
論文出版年：	2010
畢業學年度：	98
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	248
中文關鍵詞：	思考地圖、寫作、以英語為外語、國小學生
外文關鍵詞：	Thinking Maps, writing, EFL, elementary students
相關次數：	點閱：1 下載：0
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

本研究的目的旨在調查思考地圖對學生寫作的影響，包括在總成績、傳記體、故事體和書信體三種文體及內容、組織、流暢度和基本文法等四種評分規準的影響。本研究乃於為期34週的寫作課中進行，共有來自兩個班級的65位國小學童參與。研究方法採用混合研究設計，即準實驗設計(量化)和質性研究設計。實驗組的班級共有34位學童，控制組則有31位學童，研究者用思考地圖教導實驗組的學生寫作，而控制組使用傳統的方法寫作。資料收集則透過學生的前測、後測、問卷、訪談以及學生的作品。研究結果顯示，實驗組與控制組在外語寫作表現上，實驗組除了在書信體的基本文法有達顯著差異外，在總分、三種文體和四個評分項目上都沒有顯著差異。但實驗組的前後測在總成績以及三種不同文體的寫作上均有顯著進步。問卷調查和訪談的結果亦發現學生認為思考地圖是很好的工具，對腦力激盪和統整資料有所助益，實驗組中等程度和低成就的學生比較依賴思考地圖。研究結果也歸納出學生使用思考地圖的四種類型，本研究更進一步發現六種寫作上常見的錯誤類型。本研究針對如何使用思考地圖教導國小學生外語寫作提供了寶貴的意見。

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of using Thinking Maps on students’ writing on overall performance, three writing genres (biographic writing, narrative writing, letter writing), and four scoring criteria (content, organization, fluency, and conventions). This study was conducted during a thirty-four week writing instruction course. It consisted of 65 students from two sixth grade classes at an elementary school in Taiwan. This was a mixed method design that used a quasi-experimental design (quantitative) and a qualitative research design. One class with 34 students was assigned to the experimental group. The other class with 31 students was in the control group. The students in the experimental group were instructed how to use Thinking Maps in writing, whilst students in the control group used conventional writing method. Data were collected from the writing performance pretests, posttests, questionnaires, interviews, and writing samples. The findings indicated that the students in the experimental group did not outperform the control group significantly on overall performance, the three writing genres, content, organization, and fluency. The only significant difference between the control and the experimental groups was on conventions in letter writing. However, the findings showed that there was a significant difference between the pretest and the posttest of the experimental group on overall performance and the three writing genres. The questionnaire data and the interview data analyses also demonstrated that Thinking Maps were helpful and good tools to brainstorm or integrate ideas at the prewriting stage. The medium-achieving and the low-achieving students in the experimental group relied more on Thinking Maps. The findings also demonstrated four patterns showing how students presented Thinking Maps. Furthermore, six common error patterns were found in the students’ writing. Finally, this study provided valuable insights and suggestions about the use of Thinking Maps in teaching EFL writing to elementary students.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 introduction

1.1 Statement of the problem...............................2
1.2 The purposes of the study..............................6
1.3 Research questions.....................................7
1.4 Significance of the study..............................8
1.5 Definition of terms....................................8
1.6 Limitations............................................9

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.1 Contributions of writing..............................10
    2.1.1 Contributions of writing to cognition...........10
    2.1.2 Contributions of writing to memory..............12
    2.1.3 The contributions of writing to speaking, 
          listening, and reading..........................13
2.2 Writing instruction...................................15
    2.2.1 Writing genre...................................15
    2.2.2 Writing product and writing process.............16
2.3 Writing assessment....................................20
    2.3.1 Scoring approaches..............................20
2.4 Thinking maps.........................................21
    2.4.1 Graphic organizers-precursor of                  
          thinking maps...................................22
          2.4.1.1 Brainstorming organizers................22
          2.4.1.2 Task-specific organizers................24
          2.4.1.3 Thinking process organizers.............25
     2.4.2 Drawbacks of the above graphic 
                   organizers.............................28
     2.4.3 Introduction to Thinking maps..................28
     2.4.4 Theories of Thinking maps......................37
          2.4.4.1 Brain research..........................37
          2.4.4.2 Cognition and metacognition.............38
     2.4.5 Qualities of thinking maps.....................39
     2.4.6 Previous studies on thinking maps..............39
2.5 Teaching writing to struggling writer................42 2.6 The roles of a writing teacher........................43

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Research Design: Mixed Method Design..................44
    3.1.1 Quasi-Experimental Design.......................44
          3.1.1.1 Independent variable....................46
          3.1.1.2 Dependent variable......................47
          3.1.1.3 Controlled variables....................47
          3.1.1.4 Participants............................48
          3.1.1.5 Instruments.............................49
    3.1.2 Qualitative method..............................60
          3.1.2.1 Open-ended Questionnaire of student’s 
                  experience in writing instruction.......60
          3.1.2.2 Interview questions of student’s    
                   experience in writing instruction......63
3.2 Instructional material................................64
3.3 Procedure of the study and the writing activities.....65
    3.3.1 Procedure of the study..........................65
    3.3.2 The writing instructional activities ...........68
    3.3.3 Questionnaire and interviews....................86
3.4 Data collection.......................................86
    3.4.1 The quantitative Data collection................86
    3.4.2 The qualitative Data collection.................88
3.5 Data analysis.........................................88
    3.5.1 Quantitative Data analysis......................88
    3.5.2 Qualitative Data analysis.......................88

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

4.1 Quantitative analysis.................................90
4.2 Qualitative analysis.................................113
    4.2.1 Questionnaire data analysis of the
          Experimental group.............................115
    4.2.2 Questionnaire data analysis of the control 
          group..........................................118
    4.2.3 Interview data analysis........................122
          4.2.3.1 Interview data analysis of the control 
                  group..................................123
          4.2.3.2 Interview analysis of the experimental  
                  group..................................129

    4.2.4 Analyses of selected students’ writing 
          samples........................................135
4.3 Discussions.........................................142 
4.4 A look back on this study...........................151 

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of the findings..............................162
5.2 Conclusions..........................................164
5.3 Recommendations......................................166

Reference................................................177


List of Tables

Table 1 the six thinking skills of Upton-Samson model.....26
Table 2 The design of the research........................48
Table 3 Name list of professionals........................57
Table 4 Two-way specification table.......................58
Table 5 Spearman Correlation of Two Raters................59
Table 6 Correction of Questionnaire A by professionals....62
Table 7 interview questions corrected by professionals....64
Table 8 The content of textbooks..........................65
Table 9 The topics for writing............................65
Table 10 Subject-verb coherence...........................69
Table 11 The possessives..................................69
Table 12 the usage of articles............................70
Table 13 Common mistakes on conventions...................72
Table 14 Sentence Structure...............................73
Table 15 Descriptive Statistics on the pretest and posttest 
         of the  two groups...............................91
Table 16 t test of the two groups on pretest mean.........91
Table 17 Homogeneity test on overall performance..........92
Table 18 ANCOVA on overall performance of the two 
         groups...........................................92
Table 19 Mean difference and Standard Deviation of progress 
         of the two groups on overall writing performance.93
Table 20 Homogeneity test on biographic writing..........93 
Table 21 ANCOVA on biographic writing of two groups......93 
Table 22 Homogeneity test on narrative writing............94
Table 23 ANCOVA on narrative writing of two groups........94
Table 24 Homogeneity test on letter writing ..............95
Table 25 ANCOVA on letter writing of two groups..........95 
Table 26 man and standard deviation of the four criteria  
         in biographic writing............................96
Table 27 mean and standard deviation of the four criteria  
         in narrative writing.............................96
Table 28 mean and standard deviation of the four criteria in
         letter writing...................................97
Table 29 Homogeneity test on content in biographic 
         writing..........................................97
Table 30 ANCOVA on content in biographic writing..........98
Table 31 Homogeneity test on organization in biographic 
         writing.........................................98 
Table 32 ANCOVA on organization in biographic writing.....98
Table 33 Homogeneity test on fluency in biographic writing  
         .................................................99
Table 34 ANCOVA on fluency in biographic writing..........99
Table 35 Homogeneity test on conventions in biographic 
         writing.........................................100
Table 36 ANCOVA on conventions in biographic 
         writing.........................................100
Table 37 Homogeneity test on content in narrative 
         writing.........................................100
Table 38 ANCOVA on content in narrative writing..........100
Table 39 Homogeneity test on organization in narrative 
         writing.........................................101
Table 40 ANCOVA on organization in narrative 
         writing.........................................102
Table 41 Homogeneity test on fluency in narrative 
         writing.........................................102
Table 42 ANCOVA on fluency in narrative 
         writing.........................................102
Table 43 homogeneity test on conventions in narrative 
         writing.........................................103
Table 44 ANCOVA on conventions in narrative writing......103
Table 45 Homogeneity test on content in letter writing...104
Table 46 ANCOVA on content in letter writing.............104
Table 47 Homogeneity test on organization in letter 
         writing.........................................105
Table 48 ANCOVA on organization in letter writing........105
Table 49 Homogeneity test on fluency in letter writing...106
Table 50 ANCOVA on fluency in letter writing.............106
Table 51 Homogeneity test on conventions in letter 
         writing.........................................106
Table 52 ANCOVA of conventions in letter writing.........107
Table 53 paired t test of the experimental group’s 
         progress....................................... 107
Table 54 paired t test of the control group’s progress..108
Table 55 pretest mean and standard deviation of the three 
         groups..........................................109
Table 56 posttest mean and standard deviation of the three 
         groups..........................................109
Table 57 mean difference and standard deviation of the 
         progress of the three groups..................110  
Table 58 comparisons of the three groups on overall 
         performance and the three writing genres .......110
Table 59 comparisons of the three groups on content, 
         organization, fluency, and conventions in 
         biographic writing .............................111
Table 60 comparisons of the three groups on content, 
         organization, fluency, and conventions in 
         narrative writing ..............................112
Table 61 A multiple comparison among the three groups on 
         conventions.....................................112
Table 62 comparisons of the three groups on content, 
         organization, fluency, and conventions in letter 
         writing ........................................113
Table 63 difficulties that students in the experimental 
         group encountered...............................114
Table 64 things that students in the experimental group 
         learned.........................................115
Table 65 genre of writing that the experimental group 
         enjoyed the most................................115
Table 66 the experimental group’s suggestions...........116
Table 67 the experimental group’s opinions about using 
         Thinking Maps...................................117
Table 68 the map(s) that students used most often........117
Table 69 difficulties that the control group encountered.118
Table 70 things that the control group learned the most..119
Table 71 the topic/writing genre that the control group 
         enjoyed the most................................120
Table 72 the control group’s suggestions................121
Table 73 the control group’s opinions about writing 
         outlines........................................121
Table 74 the control group’s difficulties with writing  
         outlines.......................................122 
Table 75 type of Thinking Maps used during the writing 
         activities......................................144
Table 76 common writing errors found in this study.......146
      
 
List of Figures

Figure 1 Learning Pyramid.................................13
Figure 2 A trial cluster using the topic “ Time“........23
Figure 3.1 Mind mapping with the topic “Happiness”......24
Figure 3.2 Mind mapping by Vanda North....................24
Figure 4 Semantic maps for reading comprehension..........25
Figure 5 A concept map using the topic “water”..........27
Figure 6 Classification using the topic “Geometric Figures” and Structural diagram using the topic “Parts of 
         the American Flag”..............................27
Figure 7 Thinking Maps....................................30
Figure 8.1 The Circle Map.................................30
Figure 8.2 The Circle Map of “Rocks”....................31
Figure 9.1 The Bubble Map.................................31
Figure 9.2 The Bubble Map with the 
           topic “Granite”..............................32
Figure 10.1 The Double Bubble Map.........................32
Figure 10.2 The Double Bubble Map for comparison..........33
Figure 11.1 The Tree Map..................................33
Figure 11.2 The Tree Map with the topic “Native American 
            tribe”.......................................34
Figure 12.1 The Brace Map.................................34
Figure 12.2 The Brace Map with the topic “parts of the 
            eye”.........................................35
Figure 13.1 The Flow Map..................................35
Figure 13.2 The Flow Map showing how to create a Graph 
            levl .........................................36
Figure 14.1 The Multi-Flow Map............................36
Figure 14.2 The Multi-Flow Map of “Population 
            decline”.....................................36
Figure 15.1 The Bridge Map................................37
Figure 15.2 The Bridge Map................................37
Figure 16 The framework of the research...................46
Figure 17 Ben’s writing on the posttest..................52
Figure 18 Jennifer’s composition on the posttest ........52
Figure 19 Jason’s composition on the posttest............53
Figure 20 Candy’s composition on the posttest............54
Figure 21 Nicola’s story on the posttest.................57
Figure 22 The procedure of this study.....................68
Figure 23 The Circle Map describing “Cinderella”........74
Figure 24 “Cinderella” Bubble Map.......................75
Figure 25 The Double Bubble Map to compare and 
          contrast“Cinderella”and “Snow White”........ 75
Figure 26 The Brace Map of the states of water............76
Figure 27 The Five senses Tree Map........................76
Figure 28 The Flow Map showing the sequence of the story “Snow White”......................................76
Figure 29 The Multi-Flow Map showing the cause of the death 
          of Snow White...................................77
Figure 30 The Bridge-Map showing the analogy of water and 
          light...........................................77
Figure 31 Samples of making outlines......................80
Figure 32 the histogram of grouping.......................87
Figure 33 the first pattern of Thinking Maps used by most 
          students.......................................136
Figure 34 visually oriented Thinking Maps................137
Figure 35 highly organized Circle Map....................138
Figure 36 highly organized Flow Map......................139
Figure 37 finished product of highly organized Thinking 
          Maps...........................................140
Figure 38 alternative forms of mapping...................141
Figure 39 finished product of “My dream”...............142
Figure 40 Candy’s pretest of the topic, All about me....149
Figure 41 Candy’s posttest of the topic, “All about me.150
Figure 42 Tommy’s pretest on “ All About Me”..........150
Figure 43 Tommy’s posttest on “All About Me"...........151
Figure 44 collaborative writing of “One Saturday Night..153
Figure 45 draft of “One Saturday Night”................154
Figure 46 collaborative writing of “One Tuesday 
          Night”........................................155
Figure 47 draft of “One Tuesday Night”.................156
Figure 48 outlines in Chinese............................158
Figure 49 outlines with few words........................159
Figure 50 outlines with clear ideas......................159
Figure 51 outlines in form of graphic organizer..........161





 
Appendixes

Appendix 1 The writing performance pretest on biographic 
           writing.......................................178
Appendix 2 The writing performance pretest on letter writing
           E-mail your friend and tell him/her what you are 
           going to do this weekend......................179
Appendix 3 The writing performance pretest on narrative 
           writing.......................................180
Appendix 4 Scoring rubric................................181
Appendix 5 學生英文教學寫作的經驗問卷  A 卷.................186
Appendix 6 Open-ended Questionnaire A: Student’s Writing 
           Experience in Writing Instruction.............188
Appendix 7 學生的英文教學寫作經驗問卷  B 卷.................189
Appendix 8 Open-ended Questionnaire B: Student’s 
           Experience in Writing Instruction.............191
Appendix 9 訪談題目 (Interview questions of students’ 
            experience in writing instruction)............193
Appendix 10 Writing a paragraph..........................195
Appendix 11 assignment on Thinking maps..................196
Appendix 12 Raw data and translation of questionnaire....198
Appendix 13 Content analysis of questionnaire............246





                                

Reference

Chinese 中文

胡清暉、郭芳綺 (民99)。學測英文作文 15523 人抱蛋。自由時報，
02/25。
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/feb/25/today-
life13.htm
陳靜宜（民94)。即席演說培訓之行動研究-以三位國小學童為例。國立新竹教
育大學碩士論文。
陳明資（民96)。陳明資。應用圖像思考策略於少年小說閱讀教學之研究。國
立新竹教育大學碩士論文。
程嬇玲（民98)。思考地圖運用於生活故事寫作之研究。國立新竹教育大學碩
士論文。
葉惠貞（民96)。思考地圖在低年級寫作的應用。全球化衝擊下的課程與教學
學術研討會
蔡雅泰 (民95)。概念構圖融入國語教學對國小五年級學童閱讀理解、大意摘
要能力與語文學習態度影響之研究。國立師範大學博士論文。

English
Abilene Christian University Adams Center (2007). Why use
leaning? Retrieved April 25, 2007, from
http://www.acu.edu/cte/activelearning/classroom_main.htm
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of
writing. Dordrecht, the Nethelands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment.
Florence, KY: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ball, M. K. (2004). The Mississippi Story. In D. Hyerle (
Ed.), Student successes with (pp.139-147). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide
to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active
learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Beare, S., & Bourdages, J. S. (2007). Skilled writers’
generating strategies in L1 and L2: An exploratory
study. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, D. Galbraith (Eds),
Writing and cognition: Research and applications
(pp.151-161). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Bender, W. N. (2002). Differentiating instruction for
students with learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Benjamin, A. (2005). Writing in the content areas (2nd
ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of
written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: Mckay.
Bromley, K., Irwin-De Vitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995).
Graphic organizers. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., &
Campione,.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and
understanding. In J. H. Flavell, & E. M. Markman
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive
development (4th ed., pp. 77-166). New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Brown, C. (2003). Guiding elementary students to generate
reading comprehension tests. TechTrends, 47 (3), 10-15.
Bruner, J. (1975). From communication to language; A
psychological perspective. Cognition, 3, 255-287.
Buckner, J. (2004). Empowering students from thinking to
writing. In D. Hyerle (Ed.), Student successes with
Thinking Maps (pp.75-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (1993). The mind map book. New
York, NY: PLUME (Penguin Books).
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chapman, C., & King R. (2003). Differentiated instructional
strategies for writing in the content areas. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Chen, J-Y. (2005). An action research on training impromptu
speech contestants, three primary pupils as examples.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei
University of Education, Taiwan, ROC.
Chen, M-Z. (2007). Using graphic thinking strategy to
develop reading techniques of fictions for young adult.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National Hsinchu
University of Education, Taiwan, ROC.
Cheng, H.-L. (2009). Using Thinking Maps to teach life-
story writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan, ROC.
Chiu, L. C. (2008). Using predictable books to teach
writing in an English as a foreign language setting.
Journal of Taiwan Normal University Education, 53(2),
27-58.
Chiu, L-C, Chang, M-Y, & Wang, H-F. (2006). Scaffolding
beginning EFL writing with predictable books. Paper
presented at the First Conference on Children’s
English Teaching and Learning, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Hsinchu .University of Education, Taiwan, ROC.
Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructure the classroom: conditions
for productive small groups. Review of Educational
Research, (64):1-35.
Costa, A.L.(1985). Developing Minds: A resource book for
teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language
proficiency. Language Learning, 39 (1), 81-141.
Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A
framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning: Essays on writing,
teaching, learning, and thinking. Portsmouth, N.H.:
Boynton/Cook.
Englert, C., Raphael, T., Fear, K., & Anderson, L. (1988).
Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write
informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11,
18-46.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on
student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315-39.
Ferris, D. (2005). Tricks of the trade: The nuts and the
bolts of L2 writing research. In P. K. Matsuda, & T.
Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research (pp223-
234). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Filipovic, Z. (1999) Foreword in The Freedom writers & E.
Gruwell, The freedom writers Diary (p.xv). New York,
NY: The Tolerance Education Foundation.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing.
Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context and theory building.
College Composition and Communication, 40, 282-311.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory
of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32,
365-87.
Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive science:
An introduction to the study of mind. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Galbraith, D., Waes, V., & Torrance, M. (2007).
Introduction to writing and cognition. In M. Torrance,
L., V. Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds), Writing and
cognition: Research and applications (pp. 1-10).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational
research: An introduction (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
Gearhart, M., Herman, J. L., & Novak, J. R. (1996). Issues
in portfolio assessment: The scorability of narrative
collections. (CSE Tech. Rep.) Los Angeles: University
of California. Center for research on evaluation,
standards, and student testing.
Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. (2005). What’s whole in whole language(20th
anniversary ed.). Berkeley, CA: RDR Books.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of
writing. New York, NY: Longman.
Grabowski, J. (2007). The writing superiority effect in the
verbal recall of knowledge: sources and determinants.
In M. Torrance, L. V. Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.),
Writing and cognition: research and applications
(pp.165-179). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in
learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 781-791.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better:
Effective strategies for teaching students with
learning difficulties. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers and children at
work (20th anniversary ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Greenwald, E., Persky, H., Cambell, J., & Mazzeo, J.
(1999). National assessment of educational progress:
1998 report card for the nation and the states.
Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.
Gregory, G. (2005). Differentiating instruction with style:
Aligning teacher and learner intelligences for maximum
achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the
portfolio: Principles for practice theory and
research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. London, England:
Pearson Education.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language
teaching (4th ed.). London, England: Pearson Education
Harris, K.R., & Graham, S., (1999). Programmatic
intervention research: Illustrations from the evolution
of self-regulated strategy development. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 22, 252-262.
Hart, L. (1983). Human brain and human learning. New
Rochelle, NY: Brain Age Publishers.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding
cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. E.
Ransdell (Eds), The science of writing: Theories,
methods, individaldifferences and applications (pp.1-
27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the
organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E.
R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing
(pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and
the writer. American Psychology, 41, 1106-1113.
Herrmann, D. J., Yoder, C. Y., Gruneberg, M., & Payne, D.
G. (2006). Applied Cognitive Psychology. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hickie, K. M. (2006). An examination of student performance
in Reading /Language and Mathematics after two years of
Thinking Maps implementation in three Tennessee
Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East
Tennessee State University, USA..
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading & writing. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Hubble, G.. (2004). The effects of Thinking Maps on reading
scores of traditional and nontraditional college
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern Mississippi, USA..
Hung, J. H. W. (1995). An innovative approach to high
school EFL teacher education and development. Papers
from the 12th Conference on English Teaching and
Learning in the ROC, 114-133.
Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing
assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends.
Review of Educational Research, 60, 237-263.
Hyerle, D. N. (1989). Expand your thinking (grades 5-8).
Cary, NC: Innovative Sciences.
Hyerle, D. N. (1993). as tools for multiple modes of
understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley, USA..
Hyerle, D. N. (1995). : Seeing is understanding.
Educational Leadership, 53 (4): 85-89.
Hyerle, D. N. (1999). Visual tools: From graphic organizers
to . Salt Lake City, UT: The LPD Video Journal of
Education.
Hyerle, D.N. (2004). Student success with Thinking Maps.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs,H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V.
F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A
practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Jensen, E. (1996). Brain-based teaching and learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Johnson, K. (2005). Expertise in second language learning
and teaching. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jones, B. F.; Pierce, J.; & Hunter, B. (1989). Teaching
students to construct graphic representations.
Educational Leadership, 46 (4), pp. 21-24.
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading (2nd). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. (2005). The composing process and the academic
composing process. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth
International Symposium on English Teaching, pp.66-78.
Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research (3rd). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leary, S. F. (1999). The effects of Thinking Maps
instruction on the achievement of fourth-grade
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA..
Leki, I. (1993). Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and
writing. In J. G.. Carson, & I. Leki, (Eds.), Reading
in the composition classroom: Second language
perspectives, (pp.9-32). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.
Lerner, J. (2003). Learning disabilities: Theories,
diagnosis, and teaching strategies (9th ed.). Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lin, H-T. (2004). A novice teacher’s professional
development: A qualitative study of the implementation
of a combination of picture book and mind mapping to
resource room students reading teaching. Unpublished
master’s thesis, National Taipei University of
Education, Taiwan, ROC.
Luk, Z. P.-S., Shirai, Y. (2009). Review article: Is the
acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious
to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of
plural –s, articles, and possessive ‘s, Language
Learning, 59 (4), 721-754.
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004).
Insights from instructional research on revision with
struggling writers. In L. Allal, L. Changqoy, & P.
Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional
processes, (pp. 125-137). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
MacIntyre, J. B. (2004). The challenge of high-stakes
testing in middle school mathematics. In D. Hyerle (
Ed.), Student successes with , (pp.87-97). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marr, E. G., Kovacs, J. A.; & Sager, W. R. (1986).
Cognitive Skills Manual. Seattle, WA: Training House.
McCutchen, D. (1995). Cognitive processes in children’s
writing: developmental and individual differences.
Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational
Psychology, 1, 123-160.
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your
Classroom. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7 (25).
Murray, D. M. (1982). Learning by teaching. Montclair, NJ:
Boynton/Cook.
Murray, D. M. (2004). A writer teaches writing (2nded.).
Boston, MA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Murray, D. M. (2005). Write to learn (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Thomson/Wadsworth.
National Writing Project & Nagin, C. (2006). Because
writing matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Newkirk, T. (1989). More than stories: The range of
children’s writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. R., Herman, J. L., & Gearhart, M. (1996).
Establishing validity for performance-based
assessments: An illustration for collection of student
writing. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 220-233.
Paulson, L. F., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What
makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership
48 (5): 60-63.
Pennycook, A. (1999). The concept of method, interested
knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (1997). Reading, writing, and
learning in ESL (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s
report card; writing. Washington, DC: U.S., Department
of Education.
Ransdell, S., Levy, C. M., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). The
structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary
task demands. LI-Educational Studies in Language and
Literature, 2, 141-163.
Renzulli, J. S., & Dai, D. Y. (2001). Abilities, interests,
and styles as aptitudes for learning: a person-
situation interaction perspective. In R. J. Sternberg,
& L-F., Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking,
learning, and cognitive styles (pp.23-46). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out: The 1987
presidential address. Educational Researcher, 19(9),
pp. 13-19.
Rico, G. L. (1983). Writing the Natural way. Los Angeles,
CA: J.P. Tarcher.
Roid, G. H. (1994). Patterns of writing skills derived from
cluster analysis of direct-writing assessments. Applied
Measurement in Education, 7(2), 159-170.
Samson, R. (1975). Thinking skills. Stamford, CT:
Innovative Sciences.
Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of
EFL learners’ writing processes. In G. Rijlarrsdam, S. Ransdell, & M. Barbier, (Eds). New Directions for Research
in L2 Writing (pp.49-78). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinct
nature of L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Silva, T. (2005). On the philosophical bases of inquiry in
second language writing: metaphysics, inquiry
paradigms, and the intellectual zeitgeist. In P. K.
Matsuda , & T. Silva, Second language writing research
(pp3-15). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Singer, B. (2004). Leveling the playing field for all
students. In D. Hyerle (Ed.), Student successes with
Thinking Maps . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns. (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spandel, V., & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Creating writers:
Linking assessment and writing instruction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive psychology (3rd ed).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Steward, E. P. (1995). Beginning Writers in the Zone of
Proximal Development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Taoyuan County Government (2006). Taoyuan English Village.
Retrieved October 6, 2008, from
http://ev.dewey.com.tw/data/homepage/english/f.html.
The Freedom writers & Gruwell, E. (1999). The freedom
writers Diary. New York, NY: The Tolerance Education
Foundation.
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative & Quantitative
research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tompkins, G. E. (2008). Teaching writing: Balancing process
and product (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Tompkins, G. E. (2007). Literacy for the 21st Century:
Teaching reading and writing in prekindergarten through
grade 4. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Tor rance, M., Waes, L. V., & Galbraith, D. (2007). Writing
and cognition: research and applications (pp.1-10).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects
of error correction: A response to Chandler. Jouranl of
Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
Tsai, Y. T. (2006). A Study on the Effect of Concept
Mapping for the 5th Grade Students in Reading
Comprehension, Summarization Ability, and Language
Learning Attitude. Unpublished dissertation of National
Kaohsiung University.
Upton, A. (1961). Design for Thinking. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Upton, A., Samson, R. (1961/1978). Creative Analysis. New
York: E. P. Dutton.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of
higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Walling, D. R. (2006). Teaching writing to visual,
auditory, and kinesthetic learners. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
White, E. M. (1984). Holisticism. College Composition and
Communication 35 (4), 400-409.
Wikipedia (2007). English village. Retrieved September 15,
2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_village.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology (9th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Yang, A. (2006). Teach writing as a game with pleasure.
Taipei: East & West book.
Yie,H-Z. (2007). Implementing Thinking Maps on the lower
grades’ writing. The Impact of globalization on
Curriculum and Instruction Conference at National
Hsinchu University of Education, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Zimmerman, B., & Reisember, R. (1997). Becoming a self-
regulated writers: A social cognitive perspective.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文