寫作者的讀者覺察能力分析及其影響效果之研究

Writing to be Read: A Study of Young Writers' Composing for Contrasting Audiences

10.6251/BEP.20070114

陳鳳如(Feng-Ru Chen)

寫作者 ； 寫作能力 ； 讀者覺察能力 ； audience awareness ； composition ； writer

教育心理學報

38卷3期（2007 / 03 / 01）

291 - 310

繁體中文

本研究的目的有二：（一）分析寫作者之讀者覺察能力，並進一步比較不同寫作能力者在此項能力上的差異；（二）探討不同寫作能力者與真實讀者互動後，對其讀者覺察能力及寫作產品之修改的影響。基於上述的研究目的，分別選取撰寫商品廣告詞的國小五年級之高、低寫作能力者各18名，以及評定商品廣告詞的五年級優秀讀者14名、有經驗的成人讀者7名，透過寫作者與真實讀者評估寫作產品的一致性來間接推估寫作者的讀者覺察能力。研究結果發現，五年級之寫作者能因應五年級讀者和成人讀者的需求寫出兩種不同內容的文章，尤其較能正確因應五年級讀者群的意圖。此外，高寫作能力者對自己寫作產品的自評和讀者的評判結果，比低寫作能力者有較高的一致性。經與真實讀者交流互動後，高、低寫作能力者之寫作產品的自評和讀者評判結果的一致性，皆有所提昇。就寫作產品的內容分析，亦顯示不管高、低寫作能力者均能依其讀者對象的不同而有不同的文章修改。

This study explored the audience awareness of 36 fifth-grade students when they composed and revised an original text for two audiences-a good fifth-grade reader and an experienced adult reader-in a realistic transactional writing task. A realistic transactional writing task is one in which the audience addressed by the writer, not an independent rater or a teacher, determines whether the writer has successfully revised the composition to meet the audience's needs and expectations. Fifth-grade and adult readers attempted to identify the target audience in two revisions produced by each writer (72 texts in total). Tests of significance for proportional differences revealed that the fifth graders could successfully revise their texts according to the types of audiences. The fifth graders were more successful in addressing the fifth-grader audience than the adult audience. The expert writers performed better than the novice writers in terms of audience awareness. Finally it was demonstrated that the fifth-grade writers could improve their audience awareness through conferences with the realistic readers.

1. 陳鳳如、郭玉生(2000)。閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式之適配度研究。師大學報，45(1)，1-18。
   連結：
2. Baker, E. A.,Rozendal, M. S.,Whitenack, J. W.(2000).Audience awareness in a technology-rich elementary classroom.Journal of Literacy Research,32(3),395-421.
3. Beason, L.(1993).Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum class.Research in the Teaching of English,27(4),395-419.
4. Berkenkotter, C.(1981).Understanding a writer`s awareness of audience.College Composition and Communication,32,388-399.
5. Chesky, J.,Hiebert, E. H.(1987).The effects of prior Knowledge and audience on high school students wiring.Journal of Education Research,80(5),304-313.
6. Corbett, E. P. J.(1971).Classical rhetoric for the modern student.New York:Oxford University Press.
7. Flower, L. S.,Hayes, J. R.(1977).Problem-solving strategies and the writing process.College English,39(4),449-461.
8. Flower, L. S.,Hayes, J. R.,L. W. Gregg,E. R. Steinberg (Eds.)(1980).Cognitive processes in writing.Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Frank, L. A.(1992).Writing to be read: Young writers` ability to demonstrate audience awareness when evaluated by their readers.Research in the Teaching of English,26,277-298.
10. Gordon, C.(1990).Changes in readers` and writers` metacognitive knowledge: Some observations.Reading Research and Instruction,30(1),1-14.
11. Hayes, J. R.,Flower, L. S.(1986).Writing research and the writer.American Psychologist,41(10),1106-1113.
12. Kirsch, G.(1991).Writing up and down the social ladder: A study of experienced writers composing for contrasting audiences.Research in the Teaching of English,25(1),33-51.
13. Lenski, S. D.,Johns, J. L.(1997).Patterns of reading-to-write.Reading Research and Instruction,37(1),15-38.
14. McCormick, K.(1987).Task representation in writing about literature.Poetics,16,131-154.
15. Perl, S.(1979).The composing process of unskilled college writers.Research in the Teaching of English,13,317-336.
16. Roth, R. G.(1987).The evolving audience: Alternatives to audience a accommodation.College Composition and Communication,38,47-55.
17. Spivey, N. N.(1997).The constructivist metaphor-Reading, writing, and the marking of meaning.California:USA, Academic Press.
18. Spivey, N. N.,L. P. Steffe (Eds.)(1995).Constructivism in education.Hilldale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
20. Whitaker, D. C.(1994).How school psychology trainees learn to communicate through the school psychological report.DAI-A.
21. 吳錦釵(1990)。寫作歷程探討與其在教學上的意義。台灣省政府教育廳、省立台北師範學院主辦「台灣省第一屆教育學術論文發表會」宣讀之論文，台北市:
22. 李麗霞(2000)。國科會專題研究報告國科會專題研究報告,未出版
23. 陳鳳如(2003)。不同寫作能力的國中生在寫作歷程與讀者察覺能力之研究。國北師院學報，16(1)，63-88。
24. 程炳林(1995)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
25. 蔡銘津(2000)。國科會專題研究報告國科會專題研究報告,未出版

1. 陳鳳如(2013)。自我詢問檢核策略的介入對讀者覺察能力的實驗效果。新竹教育大學教育學報，30(1)，39-69。
2. 廖本裕(2010)。寫作歷程模式數位教學平臺之設計與實施成效之研究。教育學刊，34，109-141。
3. 廖長彥、陳德懷、陳秉成、張菀真(2017)。透過同儕回應寫作環境培養國小學生的讀者意識。數位學習科技期刊，9(4)，25-51。
4. (2009)。從寫作理論談國小學生常見的寫作錯誤及其在教學上的啓示。教育研究，17，205-218。
5. (2017)。為誰而寫：讀者覺察與其在兒童寫作發展上的啟示。市北教育學刊，58，43-72。