政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/49883

政大典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Department of English > Theses > Item 140.119/49883

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49883

Title:	合作式翻譯學習任務設計研究 Design-based research on developing cooperative translation tasks
Authors:	王慧娟 Wang, Hui Chuan
Contributors:	陳彥豪招靜琪王慧娟 Wang, Hui Chuan
Keywords:	翻譯學習任務合作式學習設計研究 translation tasks cooperative learning Design-Based Research
Date:	2009
Issue Date:	2010-12-09 12:04:39 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	過去十年，翻譯學習已成為外文系大學生學習的重點之一，但是許多研究發現教師仍使用傳統的翻譯教學法。在傳統的教室，學生過度依賴以教師為中心的學習，教師本身亦接受或間接鼓勵被動的學習方式。學生只想聽取教師的建議，而鮮少了解自己的翻譯過程、翻譯風格及自我解決問題的方法。本研究的目的在設計一個翻譯學習活動：「合作式翻譯任務」。此設計經過三個階段：(一) 初步設計；(二) 施實「合作式翻譯任務」的二個原型；(三) 完成合作式翻譯任務的設計。本研究採用設計本位研究方法 (Design-based research method)，並試圖對真實學習情境作深入地了解。在原型(一)共有五個活動：活動一為書面同儕回饋、活動二為組內討論及翻譯者研討會、活動三為口頭同儕回饋、活動四為口頭教師回饋、活動五為最終校正。研究的參與者為科技大學的外語系學生，在第一循環共有56位學生參加，在第二循環有25位學生參加，另有二位翻譯教師參與此研究。本研究採用三角測量研究法 (triangulation) 來收集資料，包含影片、訪談及學生的翻譯文本等。研究分析的工具為「活動理論」，並從社群、分工、媒介三方面進行分析，以尋求可能解決設計問題的方法。經過二個原型的實施，本研究設計出「合作式的翻譯任務」。活動一為訓練學生描述及解釋翻譯錯誤的能力。活動二為個人的書面同儕回饋，學生需使用文書處理軟體中的「新增註解」功能給予回饋。活動三為學生研討會及教師研討會。每位學生需記錄自己在研討會的討論結果。教師研討會的時間較短，以便讓與會的學生回學生研討桌分享研討的結果。活動四為學生翻譯員上台分享在學生研討會中得到的回饋及達成的共識。活動五為二個教師給予口頭回饋。活動六為學生使用「新增註解」註明所收集到的回饋、是否接受建議及理由。每組需交出一份校正後的翻譯，及附有註解的檔案。研究發現學生較相信教師的評語，但是對同儕評語的不信任卻增加學習自主性。學生經分析同儕建議的翻譯、重組或修改後才採用。影響學生互動的因素為問答的溝通模式、同儕間的熟悉度及對同儕回饋的信念。學生的回饋方式傾向於找出有問題的翻譯、提供建議的翻譯及給予讚許。但他們很少給予針對自己的評語作解釋。本研究提供理論上及實務教學的建議。在理論方面，本研究提出三種理論：領域理論、設計框架、及設計實施方法。在實務教學方法，合作式翻譯任務提供翻譯教師另一種教學模式，以期達到最佳的教學成效。 For the past decade, translation learning has been one of the main foci for university language learners, but a number of studies have found that many translation teachers still utilize traditional translation teaching methods (Chang, Yu, Li & Peng, 1993; Dai, 2003; Mu, 1992). In traditional classrooms, students tend to depend heavily on teacher-centered instruction, and teachers accept or encourage the students’ passive learning attitudes (Kiraly, 1995). As a result, students only follow the teachers’ suggestions and rarely reflect up their own translating process, translation styles, and problem-solving approaches. The goal of this study was to design a translation learning task called the Cooperative Translation Task (CoTT). It was achieved in three phases: (a) the initial design of the CoTT; (b) the implementations of two prototypes of the CoTT and (c) the finalized CoTT. The current study followed a design-based research (DBR) framework to clarify the complicated interactions in an authentic learning environment. In total, there were five sessions in Prototype I:Session 1: Written Peer Response; Session 2: Within-group Discussion & Translator Seminar; Session 3: Oral Peer Response; Session 4: Oral Teacher Response; and Session 5: Final Revisions. The student participants in both cycles were technological university students, including 56 students in Cycle I and 25 in Cycle II. Two translation teachers participated in the study. For data collection, triangulation data were collected, including videos, interviews, and student documents. The data was put into the framework of Activity theory to diagnose implementation problems in terms of community, division of labor, and mediating artifacts, and innovations with solutions were provided. Following the second prototype, the latest version of the CoTT has been constructed. In Session 1, training in describing and explaining errors is conducted. In Session 2, a peer group gives written responses for the translator group to make revisions. To encourage students to give explanations to their own peers, individual accountability is included. The peer group uses the Comment function in the word-processing software to identify, describe, and explain the agreeable and disagreeable translations. In Session 3, a student seminar and a teacher seminar are conducted simultaneously. To help students take organized notes on the results of their discussions, and to prevent students from not accepting responsibility in the discussions, an individual seminar sheet is given to each student. The teacher seminar finishes earlier than the student seminar so that the members can return to the original seminar and share the teachers’ suggestions with the group. In Session 4, the translator group needs to present the comments from each seminar. In Session 5, the two teachers can use multiple criteria for error analysis. In Session 6, translator members use the Comment function in the word-processing software to insert collected comments, their acceptance level, and the reasons why they accept or reject each suggestion. Each group needs to turn in the final product, one copy with and one without the comments, to the instructor. The present study has found that students have a tendency to trust and use the teachers’ comments. However, this distrust of peers’ review increased students’ autonomy. Students underwent a process of analysis of the suggested translations and reformation of the translation. The influential factors in student-student interaction are an Asking and Answering communication mode and Acquaintance (2A), and students’ values in peer response. When giving a linguistic-level evaluation, students provided the most comments on mechanics, then comments vocabulary and sentences. As for the types of responses, they focused mainly on the identification of translations, provision of suggested translations, and some compliments on agreeable translations. They seldom gave explanations for either agreeable or disagreeable translations. The present study has both its theoretical and practical implications. This design-based study offers three kinds of theories: domain theories, a design framework, and design methodologies. The CoTT and its six sessions provide translation teachers an alternative way to teach, especially for teachers trained in other professions.
Reference:	Adam, D. M., & Hamm, M. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across curriculum. Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas Publisher. Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28. Al-Mijrab, R. A. (2005). A product-based approach to translation training. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 50(4), 1-11. Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513-523. Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge language teaching library. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Aronson, E., & Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Arsher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions. Attride-Stirling, J. (2007). Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. In Qualitative research 2. Bryman, A. (Ed), Qualitative research 2. Sage benchmarks in social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington: Winston. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24. Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in society, 13, 145-204. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, Mass: Pearson A & B. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman. 7th Edition. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. Brown, G. I. (1971). Human teaching for human learning; An introduction to confluent education. New York: Viking Press. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, N.Y.: Pearson Education. Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the ‘convention of man-kind.’ College English, 46, 635-652. Cadlin, C. (Ed).(1978/1981).The communicative teaching of English. London: Longman. Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188. Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the second language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Chang, D. (張達聰編)，(1996)。翻譯之原理與技巧。台北：國家。 Chang, P., Yu. Y., Li, Z., & Peng, M. (張培基、喻雲根、李宗杰、彭謨禹編)，(1993)。英漢翻譯教程。台北：書林。 Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15, 1-16. Chung, J. (1991). Collaborative learning strategies: The design of instructional environments for the emerging new school. Educational Technology, 31(2), 15-22. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., deSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13. Colina, S. (2003). Translation teaching, from research to the classroom: A handbook for teachers. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. Connor, U. & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. London: Oxford University Press. Cronin, M. (2005). Deschooling translation: Beginning of century reflection on teaching translation and interpreting. In M. Tennent, Training for the new millennium (pp. 249-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dai, B. (戴碧珠)，(2003)。台灣各大學英文系及應用英文系筆譯教學現狀探討。 Master thesis, Fu Jen University. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (p. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Dirks, W. A. (杜文宇)，(2000)。Collaboration and Learning in the Translation Classroom. Master thesis, Fu Jen University. Davis, P., Garside B. & Rinvolucri M. (1998). Ways of doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Socio-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496. de Guerrero, M. C. M. & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman,Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105-114. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284. Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: group dynamics and motivation. Modern Language Journal, 81 (4), 482-493. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design Research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121. Ellis, R. (1992). Second language acquisitions and language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2002). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1993).Developing studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In J. Lave & S. Chaiklin, (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64-103. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki-Gitai, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Learning in doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage. Flurkey, D. G (1992). Collaborative learning: why it succeeds in writing class. Contemporary Education, 63 (3), 213-216. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302. Garibaldi, A. (1986). Cooperation, competition and locus of control in Afro-American students. Doctoral Dissertation, Univ. of Minn. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Government Information Office (GIO) (行政院新聞局)。(2004)。臺灣翻譯產業現況調查研究總結分析報告。2009年6月2日取自 http://info.gio.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=25632&ctNode=3444&mp=1。 González Davies, M. (2004). Multiple voices in the translation classroom: activities, tasks, and projects. Benjamins translation library, v. 54. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255-276. Hilke, E. V. (1990). Cooperative learning. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa. Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12. Holmes, J. S. (ed.) (1998). The name and nature of translation studies. In L. Venuti (ed.) (2000), pp. 172-185. Huang, C. W. (黃靖雯). (2007). A Study of Translation Difficulties Encountered by Students of University of Technology in Southern Taiwan. Master thesis, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce. Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing : taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 103-124). New York: Plenum. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R. S. Tindale et al. (Ed.), Theory and Research on Small Groups (pp.9-35): New York, Plenum Press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individual learning (5th ed.). Needham, Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec E. J. (2002). Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kagan, S. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52 (8), 68-71. Kiraly, D. C. (1995). Pathways to translation: Pedagogy and process. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press. Kiraly, D. C. (2000). A social constructivist approach to translator education. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Kelly, D., & AVANTI Research Group. (2007).Translator competence contextualized. Translator training in the framework of higher education reform: In search of alignment in curricular design. In D. Kenny & K. Ryou (Eds.), Across boundaries: International perspectives on translation studies (pp. 128-142). Cambridge: Cambridge. Kupsch-losereit, S. (1985). The problem of translation error evaluation. In Titford, C. and Hieke, A. E. (Eds.), Translation in foreign language teaching and testing, Tübingen, Gunter Narr, 169-179. Kussmaul, p. (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lai, S. (賴慈芸)，(2002)。結合實習的翻譯教學計畫。翻譯學研究集刊，7，377-397。 Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Positive interdependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies, and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 476-488. Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-19. Liao, B. S. (廖柏森)，(2009)，溝通式翻譯教學法之意涵與實施，編譯論叢，2，頁65-91。 Liao, B. S. & Chiang, M. Y. (廖柏森、江美燕)，(2005)，使用檔案翻譯教學初探，翻譯學研究集刊，9，291-312。 Lin, Y. (林燕裕). (2003). Analysis of Course Designs for Applied English Departments in Southern Taiwan. Master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. Liu, M. (劉宓慶)，(1997)。英漢翻譯訓練手冊。台北：書林。 Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 305-325. Loschky, L. (1994). Grammar and task based methodology. In G. Crookes & S.M. Gass(Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Malmkjær, K. (2004). Translation in undergraduate degree programmes. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 134-145). White Plains, NY: Longman. Mangelsdorf, K. & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254. Mendonça, C. O. & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiation: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-69. Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200. Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. Min, H. -T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In The psychology of computer vision, edited by P. H. Winston. New York: McGraw Hill. Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). White Plains, NY: Longman. Morse, J. (1994). Design funded qualitative research. In Denzin, N. & Lincorn, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mu, L. (穆雷)，(1992)。中國翻譯教學研究。台北：上海外語教育出版社。 Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131. Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171-193. Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Manchester: St. Jerome. Nord, C. (2005). Training functional translators. In M. Tennent, Training for the new millennium (pp. 249-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nunan, D. (1993). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: allyn and Bacon. Oliva, P. F. (1997). Developing the Curriculum (4th ed.). U.S.A.: Harper Collins Publishers. Olsen, R. E. W-B & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book. N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents. PACTE, in press. “Acquiring translation competence: Hypotheses and methodological problems of a research project.” In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas (eds), Investigating translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Patton, M. Q., & Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289. Pica, T. & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communication language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (1985). Input in second language acquisition, 115-132. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Polio, C., & Gass, S. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of nonnative speaker speech. Modern Language Journal, 82, 308-319. Putnam, J. W. (1997). Cooperative Learning in diverse Classroom. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97-116. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986/2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, D. (1997). Becoming a translator. London & New York: Routleddge. Rogers, C. (1994). Freedom to learn. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill. Romney, J. C. (1997). Collaborative learning in a translation course. The Canadian Modern language Review, 54(1), 48-67. Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, edited by R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In Representation and understanding, edited by D. G. Brobow and A. Collins. New York: Academic Press. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. Colchester, VT: Teachers College Press. Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Slavin, R. E. (1997). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (p. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Technological and Vocational Education Curriculum (技職體系課程綱要)。(2005)。課程綱要。2009年5月26日取自 http://course.tvc.ntnu.edu.tw/download/課程綱要/web/main.html Tennent, M. (2005). Training for the new millennium: pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In Van Esch, K., & St. John, O. (2004). New insights into foreign language learning and teaching. Foreign language teaching in Europe, v. 9. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. Tsui, A. B. M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefits from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. Ulrych, M. (2005). Training translators: Programs, curricula, practices. In Tennent, M. (2005). Training for the new millennium: pedagogies for translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Van den Akker, J., Gravemeiger, K., McKenney, S. & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing Educational Design Research. In Van den Akker, J., Gravemeiger, K., McKenney, S. & Nieveen, N. (in press) (Eds.), Educational design research. (pp. 1-8). London:Routledge. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75. Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23. Wang, H. C. (王慧娟) (2007). A comparative study on Taiwanese English-majored students’ learning needs on both English and Chinese translation courses. In the proceedings of 2007 international conference on applied linguistics and foreign language instruction (p. 303-328). National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology: Kaun Tang International Publiscations. Wang, H. C. (王慧娟) (2009a).Experiential learning and negotiation in translation classrooms: Simulated seminar. 第十四屆口筆譯教學國際學術研討會, 221-236。日昇印刷文具有限公司。 Wang, H. C. (王慧娟) (2009b).任務式翻譯學習-與非營利機構的翻譯合作計畫。In the Proceedings of 2009 international conference on language, literature, and teaching (p. 96-111). National Chin-Yi University of Technology: 東華。 Wang, H. C. (王慧娟) (2010).Interactive Translation Editing Activity. In the proceedings of 2010 international conference and workshop on TEFL & applied linguistics (p.448-454). Ming Chuan University: Crane Publishing Company. Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schmuck (eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (p. 147-172). New York: Plenum. Wolfe, W. J. (2004). Online student peer reviews. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 5th conference on Information technology education, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Woods, P. (2006). Successful writing for qualitative researchers. London: Routledge. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209. Zhou, Z. (周兆祥編)，(1997)。專業翻譯。台北：書林。 Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.
Description:	博士國立政治大學英國語文學研究所 94551505 98
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094551505
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Department of English] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
150501.pdf		2243Kb	Adobe PDF2	1421	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...