本研究的目的在瞭解線上同儕互評對國小六年級學童寫作學習的影響。首先，本研究建構一個可促進學習者有意義寫作的線上互評寫作平台「讀來讀往寫作天地」，讓學習者在進行書寫編輯、評量、修稿與繳交作品的各個活動更為方便、順利。其後，進一步於實際的教室情境中，探究在該平台上進行的寫作活動對於小六學童寫作能力與寫作態度的影響以及學童對寫作課程的評價，更針對學童在互評歷程中的評鑑表現加以剖析，以理解線上互評機制是如何影響學童寫作學習。
本研究以台北市某國民小學六年級一個班級為研究對象（共31人），採前實驗設計中的單組前後測設計。班級學童於實驗處理期間進行5 次的寫作活動，每一寫作活動長達兩週（每週兩節課，每節課40分鐘），學童採四人一組的異質分組形式於「讀來讀往寫作天地」上進行與寫作學習相關之活動，每一次寫作活動中學童皆會產出一篇成品。
經過為期十週的線上互評寫作後，歸納量化與質性的研究資料發現：(1) 在寫作能力方面，學童在說明文的「立意取材」、「結構組織」、「遣詞造句」以及「整體分數」的寫作表現顯著進步 (2) 在寫作態度方面，學童在寫作態度問卷「挑戰性」向度上的分數顯著提升 (3) 在評鑑表現方面，學童多給予指正性的評分意見，且多針對「錯別字與標點符號」的文本問題給予評語，而隨著互評次數的增加，學童表達評語的方式更為具體，此外，評語的文字陳述普遍來說多表達清楚無誤 (4) 在課程滿意度方面，學童在課程回饋問卷的填答結果顯示學童「對寫作課程的看法」、「對線上學習活動的觀感」以及「對讀來讀往寫作天地介面設計的意見」皆給予正面的評價 (5) 在教師觀點方面，訪談結果顯示實驗班級教師肯定線上同儕互評對於寫作教學與學生學習的助益。由上述研究結果可知，以學習者為中心並可提供真實讀者回饋的同儕互評，在充分利用線上寫作環境的優勢下，對於小六學童的寫作學習具有正面的促進效果，而教師亦對於此寫作課程的設計與教學成效感到滿意。

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of online peer assessment upon the sixth-graders’ learning of writing. First of all, an online writing website- Du Lai Du Wang writing field, was set up to promote learners’ meaningful writing, through which the learners can write articles, evaluate peer’s compositions, revise drafts, and hand in writings easily and smoothly. In addition to investigating the practical influence of the writing website on the sixth-graders’ writing skill, writing attitude and evaluation of the curriculum, the pupils’ performances in the assessing process were also analyzed to probe how peer assessment affected the learning of writing.
A one-group pretest-posttest design was implemented in the study, using 31 sixth-graders from certain elementary school in Taipei to engage in the online writing activity. There were five-time online writing activities during the experiment period, and each online writing activity took two weeks (40 minutes per class; two classes per week). The subjects were divided into eight heterogeneous groups and each of them yielded five compositions during the experiment period.
After the ten-week experimental treatment, the integrated results derived from quantitative and qualitative research data were inducted as followings: (1) the students’ writing skills improved dramatically in argumentation, organization, language use and holistic score also improved significantly; (2) the students’ improved attitude toward writing reflected a significant increase in scores on the challenge dimension of the questionnaire; (3) evaluating the results, most of the students’ remarks were corrective, especially on word accuracy and punctuation marks; the expression of remarks became more concrete through the increased practices in peer assessment; further, the expression of remarks were clear and correct in general; (4) in terms of satisfaction with the curriculum, the students highly evaluated the writing curriculum, the online learning activities and the interface design of the website ; (5) the instructor’s perception revealed appreciation of the online peer assessment as a teaching method for writing. According to the aforementioned, it has been demonstrated that the learner-centered peer assessment could provide authentic readers for students. The advantages of an online writing environment supported the students’ learning and the teacher was also satisfied with the curriculum design and teaching effects.

【中文部份】
王瑀(2004）。以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現。國立中央大學學習與
教學所碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
邱麗綺(2003)。高年級國語科卷宗評量中的師生互動及學生自評與互評之研究。
國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。
張新仁(1992)。寫作教學研究-認知心理學取向。高雄：復文。
張春興(2000)。教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。臺北市：東華。
Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993/1998).岳修平(譯)。
教學心理學：學習的認知基礎。台北：遠流。
劉子鍵和黃毓翎（2003，12月）。以言談分析方法解析電腦中介溝通之師生即時
互動。載於李藝(主編)，第七屆全球華人學習科技研討會暨第十一屆國際電
腦輔助教學研討會（GCCCE2003）論文集（709-715頁）。中國大陸：南京大
學。（NSC 91-2520-S-008-009）
【英文部分】
Andrade, H. G., & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in
learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-34.
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.
Baker, E. A., Rozendal, M. S., & Whitenack, J. W. (2000). Audience awareness in a
technology-rich elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research : JLR,
32(3), 395-419.
Collier, R., & Werier, C. (1995). When computer writers compose by hand.
Computers and Composition, 12(1), 47-59.
Cooper, M., & Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about protocols. College Composition
and Communication,34(3), 284-93.
Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on student''s writing.
American Educational Research Journal, 26 (2), 143-159.
Day, M., & Batson, T. (1995). The network-based writing classroom: The ENFI idea.
In Collins, Marie & Z. Berge (Eds.), Computer Mediated Communication and
the Online Writing Classroom (pp. 25-46). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and
Training International, 37(4), 346-355.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addresses/ audience invoked: The role of
audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and
Communication, 35(2), 155-171.
Flower, L. (1979).Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing.
College English, 41 (1), 19-37.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational
Research, 57(40), 481-506.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and
Communication, 40(3), 282.311.
Fry, S. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 177-189.
Flower, L.(1994). The construction of negotiated meaning : A social cognitive theory
of writing. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment.
Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175-187.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A
meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Education Research,
70(3), 287-322.
Geest, T. V. D., & Remmers, T. (1994). The computer as means of communication
for peer-review groups. Computers and Composition, 11, 237-250.
Haaga, D. A. F. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology course.
Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), 28-32.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Bar-Natan, I. (2002). Writing development of Arab and
Jewish students using cooperative learning (CL) and computer-mediated
communication (CMC). Computers & Education, 39, 19-36.
Katstra, J., Tollefson, N., & Gilbert, E. (1987). The effects of peer evaluation on
attitude toward writing and writing fluency of ninth grade students. Journal of
Educational Research, 80(3), 168-172.
Lumpe, A. T., & Staver, J. R. (1995). Peer collaborative and concept development:
learning about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1),
71-98.
Lee, S. D., Armitage, S., Groves, P., & Stephens, C. (1999). Online Teaching: Tools
& Projects - Computer Mediated Communication (CMC).
Liu, E. Z. -F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C. -H., & Yuan, S. -M. (2001). Web-based peer
review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 44(3), 246-251.
Liu, E. Z. -F., & Yuan, S. -M. (2003). A study of students'' attitudes toward and
desired system requirements of networked peer assessment system. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4), 349-354.
McCord, E. A. (1991). Meeting the reader''s needs: Audience response through
reader-focused testing. The Bulletin of the Association for Business
Communication, 39-45.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in
student writing projects. Journal of Education for Business, 70(4), 220-227.
Mowl, G., & Pain, R. (1995). Using self and peer assessment to improve students''
essay writing: A case study from geography. Innovations in Education and
Training International, 32(4), 324-335.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change : a classroom
study. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.
Nystrand, M., & Himley, M. (1984). Written text as social interaction. Theory into
Practice, 23(3), 198-207.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies of reciprocity
between writers and readers. London: Academic Press.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Callaghan, A. (2004). Implementation of a formative
assessment model incorporating peer and self-assessment. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 41(3), 273-290.
Petrosky, A. (1983). Review of Problem Solving Strategiesfor Writing. College
Composition and Communication, 34(2), 233-235.
Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer
assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(4),
314-323.
Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W., & Gay, G. (2001). An epistemological framework for
analyzing student interactions in computer-mediated communication
environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 41-68.
Redd-Boyd, T. M., & Slater, W. H. (1989). The effects of audience specification on
undergraduates'' attitudes, strategies, and writing. Research in the Teaching of
English, 23(1), 77-108.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235-276.
Schriver, K. A. (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers'' needs. Written
Communication, 9(2), 179-208.
Simkin, M. G., & Ramarapu, N. K. (1997). Student perceptions of the peer review
process in student writing projects. Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication, 27(3), 249-263.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities.
Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer
assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169.
Tsai, C. -C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. -M. (2002). Developing science activities
through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38,
241-252.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience
awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 184-201.
Waes, L. V., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing
mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 829-853.
Zimmerman, B. B. (1998). Linda Flower and social cognition: Constructing a view of
the writing process. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(3), 25-37.
Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review.
International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(4), 311-345.