论文题目：中国学生在线英语写作同伴互评学习投入历时性研究
摘要：近年来,语言教育工作者不断探索如何以计算机为媒介实施同伴互评和培养写作技能。研究发现,只要同伴之间的交流清晰、有建设性,且评语能被采纳,在线同伴互评就能成为有效学习的催化剂（Kasch et al.,2021）,向对方学习和与对方学习都能促使学生反思自身写作（Liu＆Hansen Edwards,2018;Race,2014）。此外,同伴互评还有助于减轻教师负担增加生生互动（Cho＆Schunn,2007;Wanner＆Palmer,2018）。鉴于此,有关互评活动设计与实施的研究层出不穷,但学习者在同伴互评中的学习投入研究尚未引起外语教学研究者的足够重视。尽管有学者开始探究同伴互评中的学习投入情况（如Fan＆Xu,2020;Hoo et al.,2020）,但现有文献主要聚焦于学生作为反馈的接受者如何投入到文本修改过程中,而从反馈提供者视角调查学习投入的特征和发展轨迹的研究相对匮乏。以计算机为媒介的在线同伴互评为探究学习投入和学业表现在不同的时间尺度上的动态关系提供了新视角。本研究将在线同伴互评（online peer review）界定为提供与接受同伴反馈的交互性在线学习活动,是一系列以作文修改为导向的学习活动的总称。在线同伴互评要求学生上传作文初稿后,先作为评价者向同伴提供反馈,再作为被评价者对所收到的评语有效性进行回评,并修改作文。同伴反馈（peer feedback）是学生以评价者身份指出对方作文优缺点并提供修改意见的行为,是同伴互评的一个重要环节。在前人研究的基础上,本文将在线同伴互评学习投入界定为学生对在线平台随机分配的同伴作文提供反馈评语时所付出的努力,包括行为、认知和情感三个维度。具体而言,行为投入是学生在行为层面的参与程度,可以从指向修改的批评、有根据的表扬和单纯表扬三个子维度进行研究;认知投入分析的主要依据是互评评语中的认知特征,如识别、定位、建议、解决和解释;情感投入是学生以评价者身份参与同伴互评的感受和情绪,通过文本情感分析进行阐释。心流理论（Flow Theory）、过程写作法和合作学习理论为诠释外语语境中的在线同伴互评学习投入提供了理论基础。心流或心流体验是积极心理学的概念,是一种全身心投入的状态,个体完全沉浸在具有挑战性的心理、情感或学习活动中,从而暂时忘却周围的任何事物（Csikszentmihalyi,1996;Egbert,2003）。本研究中的核心要素与触发心流体验的必要条件相契合,如技能—挑战平衡、明确的目标、控制感和持续的反馈。此外,过程写作法为研究中的多人互评和多稿写作提供了依据。合作学习理论也为构建在线学习共同体和同伴支架提供了理论支持。本探索性研究历时两个学期,以某研究型大学英语专业一年级三个自然班级的76名学生为研究对象,在基础英语写作课程中基于Peerceptiv组织在线同伴互评。依据评价标准和评语提示,学生从四个维度提供反馈评语:基于Toulmin模型的议论文要素（Qin＆Karabacak,2010;Toulmin,1979,2003;Verheij,2005）、论证的有效性、语法和词汇、以及语言风格。具体而言,本文旨在探究以下研究问题:1.英语专业本科一年级学生作为评价者,如何实质性地投入到在线同伴互评活动中?2.学生如何评价自己在提供同伴反馈时的学习投入情况?3.在四轮同伴互评活动中,学生的学习投入如何影响其互评表现?为探究以上问题,本研究收集了多种来源的定性和定量数据,包括1217份互评评语、304篇议论文初稿、1217份回评评语、304篇反思日志、半结构化访谈语料和同伴互评学习投入在线调查数据。数据分析包括五个部分:1)切分互评评语为22194个最小意群（对同一话题的连续评论）,以揭示学生实质性的行为和认知投入情况,以及评语质量和数量;2)对反思日志进行文本情感分析,以探究情感投入度;3)学习投入量表定量分析,以揭示学生如何感知自我学习投入度;4)对四个话题的议论文初稿进行评价,以考察英语写作水平发展情况;5)对访谈语料和回评评语进行定性分析。研究中,所有文本数据均由多名受过专业训练的助研人员进行编码和统计;定量数据采用SPSS 20.0进行处理。从整体上看,学生在四轮在线同伴互评活动中能够积极地参与到反馈任务中,并在行为和认知上持续投入。研究还发现,学习投入三个维度间的关系在不同阶段都具有一致性,即行为投入和认知投入之间存在显著的高度正相关关系;但情感投入与这两个维度的正相关系数较低。本文还对学生行为、认知和情感投入的显著特征和发展轨迹进行了深入讨论。为回答第二个研究问题,本研究使用自主开发的学习投入量表测量学生自我感知的学习投入程度。从整体上看,研究对象的学习投入自我感知较为积极;在线表现、人际沟通、反馈策略、任务管理、评价者信心和互评价值认同等六个因子与学习投入之间具有显著的正相关关系。最后一个研究问题聚焦学习投入和互评表现之间的关系。研究证实,学生在同伴反馈中的行为投入越积极、且认知投入越多元,个体就越有可能向同伴提供篇幅较长且质量较好的评语,并有助于提高自身写作质量。在四轮互评中,学生的评语的数量和质量都保持了持续增长的趋势。多元线性回归的结果显示,学习投入三个维度构成的组合可以解释评语数量和质量60%以上的变异,其中认知和行为投入具有较强的解释力。学生四轮议论文初稿写作成绩平均分具有显著性差异。重复对比检验也显示,除议论要素以外,其他三个写作维度的成绩均呈现显著上升趋势。此外,学生的整体写作发展与行为投入和认知投入有显著的中度正相关,尤其是认知投入中的识别、解决方案和建议等认知投入以及行为投入中的纠正性批评都有助于提高英语写作质量;而情感投入与写作成绩提高幅度的相关性较低。研究进一步发现,英语水平对学生的实质性学习投入程度和自我感知的投入程度没有影响,高水平和低水平学生在同伴评论的数量和质量上也没有显著差异。虽然前者在写作质量上比后者有优势,但随着学生参与更多轮次的同伴互评活动,二者间的差距不断缩小。这一发现具有积极启示意义,可以在一定程度上打消教师因为学生英语水平参差不齐而对同伴互评所产生的顾虑。无论英语水平高低,只要教师能加以引导并合理实施,英语专业一年级学生便能在行为、认知和情感等层面上积极投入。虽然学习投入度会随时间的推移而产生波动,但总体仍呈上升趋势。这意味着,当学生从同伴互评中受益时,投入度得以保持和提高。同时,学习投入度越高,学业表现越符合预期。综上,本研究对拓宽外语写作同伴互评学习投入研究、构建同伴互评学习投入分析框架、拓宽外语写作教学研究视角进行了有益探索。鉴于学习投入的重要性和同伴互评的教学优势,未来可进一步对比不同互评模式下学习投入的特征,探究影响学习投入的环境因素以及学习者个体差异对学习投入的影响。
关键词：在线同伴互评;书面反馈;行为投入;认知投入;情感分析
学科专业：外国语言学及应用语言学
Abstract
摘要
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
1.1.1 Peer Review Practice in L2 Writing
1.1.2 Student Engagement in Peer Review Activities
1.1.3 Issues in Argumentative Writing
1.2 Theoretical Rationale
1.3 Objectives and Necessity of the Present Study
1.4 Thesis Structure
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Peer Review in ESL/EFL Writing
2.1.1 Defining Peer Review and Peer Feedback
2.1.2 Studies on Peer Comments
2.1.3 Reported Effectiveness of Peer Review
2.1.4 Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Peer Review
2.2 Understanding Student Engagement
2.2.1 Earlier Conceptualization
2.2.2 Engagement as a Process and Outcome
2.2.3 Engagement as an Indicator and Facilitator
2.3 Constructs of Student Engagement
2.3.1 Emotional Engagement
2.3.2 Behavioral Engagement
2.3.3 Cognitive Engagement
2.3.4 The Interplay of Engagement Dimensions
2.4 Assessing Student Engagement
2.4.1 Self-report Surveys
2.4.2 Interviews
2.4.3 Observations
2.4.4 Textual Analysis
2.5 Empirical Studies of Student Engagement with L2 Learning
2.5.1 Frameworks of Domain-specific Student Engagement
2.5.2 Relationships between L2 Students’ Engagement and Learning Outcomes
2.6 Student Engagement in Peer Review of Writing
2.7 Summary
Chapter 3 Theoretical Foundations and Analytical Framework
3.1 The Process Approach to Writing
3.1.1 Concepts of the Process Writing Approach
3.1.2 Peer Review and the Process Writing Approach
3.2 Cooperative Learning Theory
3.3 Flow Theory
3.3.1 Flow Theory in Educational Psychology
3.3.2 Flow and Language Acquisition
3.4 Conceptual Framework of Student Engagement in Online Peer Review
Chapter 4 Research Design
4.1 An Overview
4.2 Research Questions
4.3 Course Context
4.3.1 Macro Context of EFL Writing Instruction in China
4.3.2 Teaching Objectives and Procedures
4.3.3 Training to Facilitate Active Engagement in Peer Review
4.3.4 Peer Review Support Structure
4.3.5 Procedures of Online Peer Review Activities in Two Semesters
4.4 Participants of the Study
4.5 Instruments
4.5.1 A Self-report Scale for Assessing Student Reviewers’ Engagement
4.5.2 Interviews
4.5.3 English Proficiency Tests
4.5.4 Reflective Journals
4.6 Data Sources and Coding Processes
4.6.1 Peer Comments and Students’ Writing Drafts
4.6.2 Coding Idea Units of Peer Comments
4.6.3 Sentiment Analysis of Students’ Reflective Journals
4.6.4 Assessing the Quality of English Argumentative Essays
4.7 Analytical Framework for the Present Study
Chapter 5 Student Engagement in Online Peer Review
5.1 Behavioral Engagement
5.1.1 Levels of Behavioral Engagement
5.1.2 Salient Features of Behavioral Engagement
5.1.3 Development Trajectories of Behavioral Engagement
5.2 Cognitive Engagement
5.2.1 Levels of Cognitive Engagement
5.2.2 Salient Features of Cognitive Engagement
5.2.3 Development Trajectories of Cognitive Engagement
5.3 Emotional Engagement
5.3.1 Sentiment Values of Polarity
5.3.2 Distinctive Emotional Traits
5.3.3 Development Trajectories of Emotional Engagement
5.4 Comparing HP and LP Students’ Engagement
5.5 Correlation of the Three Dimensions of Engagement
Chapter 6 Self-report Engagement and Its Correlation with Substantive Engagement
6.1 Peer Reviewers’ Self-report Engagement
6.1.1 Online Performance
6.1.2 Value Recognition
6.1.3 Feedback Strategies
6.1.4 Task Management
6.1.5 Reviewer Confidence
6.1.6 Interpersonal Communication
6.2 Correlation among the Six Factors
6.3 Comparing Self-report Engagement between the HP and LP Students
6.4 Correlation between Self-report and Substantive Engagement
Chapter 7 Performance Outcomes of Student Engagement
7.1 Thoughts on Choosing Performance Outcome Indicators
7.2 Peer Comment Quantity
7.2.1 Development of Comment Word Count
7.2.2 The Longer, the Better?
7.3 Peer Comment Quality
7.3.1 Proportion of Peer Comment Quality Indicators
7.3.2 Changes of Peer Comment Quality Grades
7.3.3 Deficiencies of Peer Comments
7.4 Development of Argumentative Writing
7.4.1 Overall Quality
7.4.2 Argument Components
7.4.3 Effectiveness of Argumentation
7.4.4 Grammar and Vocabulary
7.4.5 Language Style
7.5 Comparing Performance Outcomes between HP and LP Students
7.5.1 Peer Comment Quantity
7.5.2 Peer Comment Quality
7.5.3 Argumentative Writing Development
7.6 Correlations between Student Engagement and Performance Outcomes
7.6.1 Engagement and Peer Comment Quantity
7.6.2 Engagement and Peer Comment Quality
7.6.3 Engagement and Argumentative Writing Development
Chapter 8 Discussion
8.1 Issues in Students’ Substantive Engagement
8.1.1 Substantial Behavioral Efforts Invested into Revision-oriented Criticism
8.1.2 Active Cognitive Engagement as Evident in Peer Comments
8.1.3 Positive Emotional Engagement over Time
8.2 The Match between Students’ Self-report and Substantive Engagement
8.2.1 Self-report Scale Presenting a Comprehensive Snapshot of Engagement
8.2.2 Flow Experience Fostering the Perception of Being Engaged
8.2.3 Empowerment Mechanisms to Optimal Engagement in Online Peer Review
8.3 The Impact of Engagement on Performance Outcomes
8.3.1 Positive Correlations between Engagement and Performance Outcomes
8.3.2 Feedback Givers’ Development of Reader Awareness
8.3.3 EFL Writing Development along with Engagement
8.4 Revised Conceptual Framework for Engagement in Peer Review
Chapter 9 Conclusion and Implications
9.1 Major Findings
9.2 Pedagogical Implications
9.2.1 Supporting Student Engagement in Offering Peer Feedback
9.2.2 Gaining an Insight into Pedagogical Innovation
9.2.3 Empowering EFL Learners to Writing
9.3 Limitations and Implications for Future Research
References
Appendix 1 Peer Review Comment Prompts and Scoring Rubric for EFL Argumentative Writing
Appendix 2 Self-report Scale of Student Engagement in Peer Review of EFL Writing
Appendix 3 Interview Protocol
Appendix 4 Assessment Sheet for Expert Raters
Appendix 5 List of Publications during Doctoral Study
Acknowledgements