本研究的主要目的在探討「同儕互評」以及研究者所發展之「同儕互評討論模式」對國小六年級學童之說明文寫作表現，以及對寫作與課程之看法的影響，並根據研究結果提出具體建議，以提供未來實施同儕互評於寫作教學上之參考。
研究者所提出之「同儕互評討論模式」主要整合寫作認知歷程理論、同儕互評與同儕討論之相關研究為核心所建構而成，並結合行動學習輔具教室之優勢，以期對同儕互評與討論歷程提供最有利的協助。
本研究以台北市某國小六年級兩個班級為研究對象，採準實驗研究設計中的不等組前後測設計，將參與研究的兩個班級，區分成互評組和互評討論組，分別實施「同儕互評」以及「同儕互評討論模式」，以了解在國小階段之寫作課程實施同儕互評與討論，對學童寫作能力之影響。
前後共實施10週的實驗教學，資料蒐集與分析兼採質化與量化之方式，分別簡述如下：
1.應用「說明文評分標準」進行寫作能力前後測之測量，以前測為共變數，將前測差異影響予以排除，進行單因子獨立樣本共變數分析，以了解兩組受試寫作能力之差異情形。
2.應用研究者自編之課程意見調查表，以單因子獨立樣本t考驗分析課程回饋問卷結果，了解兩組受試者看法上的差異情形。
3.以言談分析方法分析同儕討論之言談內容，以了解同儕討論對寫作互評歷程之促進效果。
本研究之結果如下：
1.互評討論組之整體寫作表現顯著優於互評組。
2.互評討論組之中低分群學生，在文字修辭之寫作表現，顯著優於互評組之中低分群學生。
3.互評討論組之高低分群學生，在組織結構之寫作表現，顯著優於互評組之中低分群學生。
4.互評討論組之高低分群學生，在內容思想之寫作表現，顯著優於互評組之中低分群學生。
5.互評討論組對寫作與課程之看法，顯著優於互評組
研究結果顯示，在國小階段之寫作課程單獨實施同儕互評，在應用評分標準方面有部分的效果，但加入互評後之同儕討論，可有助於學生對回饋與評分標準的理解，增進同儕互評的成效，促使本研究所發展之同儕互評討論模式能運作得更好，進而提升小六學童之說明文寫作能力。

The main purpose of this study was to explore the effects, on writing performance and attitude, of “peer assessment” and “the model of peer assessment with discussion” developed by the researcher. According to the results, the research provided some suggestions and future researches about the implementation of peer assessment during writing instruction.
The subjects were 63 six grade students of two classes from wan-feng elementary school in Taipei City. The research was pretest-posttest design with two nonequivalent groups of quasi-experimental design. The subjects were divided into two groups. The first experimental group（N=33）accepted the instruction of “peer assessment”, while the second experimental group（N=30） accepted the instruction of “The Model of Peer Assessment and Discussion”.
The experiment continued with ten weeks, the data were analyzed as follow：
1.The criterion of writing performance for expository articles was used to measure the writing performance during pretesting and posttesting , and applying twelve one-way ANCOVA statistics to test the divergence of two groups on posttesting.
2.The questionnaire of curriculum was used to measure the attitude of writing and curriculum, and applying t-test to test the divergence of two experimental groups.
3.Applying “the method of discourse analysis” to analysis the content of peer discussion.
The findings were as follows:
1.The whole writing performances of the second experimental group were better than the first experimental group.
2.The middle grade and low grade students of second experimental group were better than the middle grade and low grade students of first experimental group on the performance of rhetoric.
3.The high grade and low grade students of second experimental group were better than the high grade and low grade students of first experimental group on the performance of structure.
4.The high grade and low grade students of second experimental group were better than the high grade and low grade students of first experimental group on the performance of content.
5.The second experimental group were better than the first experimental group on attitude of writing and curriculum.
The result above illustrated some meaning as follow:
The peer discussion after peer assessment promote the effect of “The Model of Peer Assessment and Discussion” developed by the researcher, also help the development of the writing performance of students. According the results of the research, the researcher also proceed the discussion, and provide some recommendations for instruction and research in the future.

參考文獻
中文文獻
王萬清（民80）：教師引導討論與小組討論對兒童寫作能力之影響研究。台南師院學報，24期，161- 169頁。
王萬清(民83)。認知觀點之寫作歷程與寫作教學。初等教育學報，7，171-212
左婉薇(民91)。同儕評論方式在英文寫作上的效益。國立高雄師範大學英語學系碩士論文
林清山（民81）。心理與教育統計學。台北：東華。
林宜利(民92)。「整合繪本與概念構圖之寫作教學方案」對國小三年級學童記文寫作表現之影響。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
李嘉齡(民84)。修改歷程教學對國小學童寫作成效之影響。國立嘉義師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文。
周文君(民91)。「多元智能統整-合作-反省思考」寫作教學對國小學童寫作態度與寫作表之影響。屏東師範學院/國民教育研究所碩士論文
柯志忠（民89）。社會互動寫作教學方法對國小高年級學童寫作品質及寫作態度影響之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文（未出版）
柯華葳(民92)。作文評分標準研究（未出版）
洪金英(民82)。文章結構的提示語主題知識對兒童說明文寫作表現的影響。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
紀淑琴〈民87〉：思考性寫作教學方案對國中生寫作能力、後設認知、批判思考及創造思考影響之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
曾慧禎(民91)。國小六年級學童在寫作歷程中後設認知行為之研究。屏東師範學院/國民教育研究所碩士論文
姜淑玲(民85)。「對話式寫作教學法」對國小學童寫作策略運用與寫作表現之影響。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
連淑鈴(民92)。電腦看圖故事寫作對國小二年級學童寫作成效及寫作態度影響之研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
郭生玉、陳鳳如(民84)。整合性過程導向寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作品質及寫作歷程的影響。師大學報，40，1-36。
郭祖珮(民91)。高層思考寫作教學方案對國中生非傳統作文寫作效果之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文
張新仁（民81）。寫作教學研究-認知心理學取向。高雄：復文。
張新仁(民82)。不同寫作能力的國小兒童寫作過程之研究。行政院國家科學委員專題研究計畫報告成果。
陳英豪、簡楚瑛、王萬清（民77）。同儕互動對國小學生寫作能力之影響研究。省立台南師範學院。
陳密桃（民79）。兒童和青少年後設認知的發展及其教學效果之分析。教育學刊，9期，頁107-147。
陳鳳如（民88）m閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式驗證及其教學效果之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
陳信汛和李建億(民91)。應用網路同儕互評於科學寫作教學之研究。
葉雪枝(民87)。後設認知寫作策略對國小四年級記敘文寫作能力提升之影響研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
蔡銘津（民80）。寫作過程教學法對國小學童寫作成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）
楊國鑫(民92)。推廣網路同儕互評系統於高級工業職業學校教學課程之研究。國立交通大學資訊科學系碩士論文
鄭博真(民85)寫作修改教學策略對國小學生寫作修改表現、寫作修改能力、寫作品質和寫作態度之影響研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
劉明松(民91)。結構性過程取向寫作教學對國小作文低成就學生寫作學習效果之研究。彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
劉勝鈺(民91)。使用資訊科技學習數學：以網路同儕互評為例，國立交通大學網路學習學程碩士論文
劉旨峰（民91）。網路同儕互評的探討、實施、評估與增進實施品質的建議
劉子鍵、王緒溢和梁仁楷(民91，7月)。當電子書包進入教室：高互動學習環境之系統建置與應用模式。教育研究，99，110-119。
蘇怡芬、林清山（民81）。後設認知訓練課程對國小低閱讀能力學生的閱讀理解能力與後設認知能力之影響。教育心理學報，25期，頁245-267。
鄭守杰(民92)。網路同儕互評對國小學童學習成效之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文
英文文獻
Ahern, T. C., & Durrington, V. (1996). Effects of anonymity and group saliency on participation and interaction in a computer-mediated small-group discussion Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 29, p133.
Ammer, J. J. (1998). Peer Evaluation Model for Enhancing Writing Performance of Students with Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 3, 263-282
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of writing composition. Hillsdale. NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bangert, R. L., & Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like event. Review of Educational Research.
Bangert, D., & Robert, L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A Meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1, 69-93.
Bartlett, E. J. (1981). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic component. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component process. In M. Nystrand(ED.), What writers know(pp. 345-363). New York: Academic Press.
Brown, S., & Knight, P., & Perry, P. (1995). Assessing learners in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies. 43, p234.
Blain, S. (2001). Study of verbal peer feedback on the improvement of the quality of writing and the transfer of knowledge in francophone Students in Grade 4 living in a minority situation in Canada. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14, 2, 156-170.
Camplese, D. A., & Mayo, J. A. (1982). How to improve the quality of student writing: The colleague swap. Teaching of psychology, 9, 122-123.
Cover, B. T. L. (1987). Blue-pencil workers: The effects of a peer editing technique on student’ editing skills and attitudes toward writing at the seventh grade level. Dissertation Abstracts International. 48, 8, 1968.
Chi, M.T.H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scafforded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 33-49.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.
Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative writing interactions in one ninth-grade classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 6, p334-345.
Englert, C.S., & Raphael, T.E., & Fear, K.L., & Anderson, L.M. (1988). Student’s metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18-46.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing：Making plans and juggling constraints. Cognitive processes in writing, 31-50.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32, 4 , 365-387.
Flavell, J.H. （1987）. Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In Franz,E.W（Ed）. Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale :Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research. 70, 3, p287.
Gay, G., Stefanone, M., Grace-Martin, M. & Hembrooke, H. (2001). The effects of wireless computing in collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 13, 2, 257–276.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S., & Russell, G., & Scott, B. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A Meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101, 3, 251-273.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. Cognitive processes in writing, 1-30.
Hull, G. (1984). The editing process in writing: a performance study of experts and novices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Haaga, D. A. F. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 28-32.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.L.C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79-97.
Kennedy, S., & Carleton, D. (1996). Encouraging Peer Dialogue in the Geography Classroom: Peer Editing to Improve Student Writing. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20, 3 , 323-341.
Lewes, U. E. (1981). Peer evaluation in a writing seminar. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 226355)
Lin, S. S. J., & Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 17, 4, 420-433.
Lin, S. S. J., & Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Student attitudes toward networked peer assessment: case studies of undergraduate students and senior high school students. International Journal of Instructional Media. 29, 2, p241.
Liu, E. Z. F., & Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Alternatives to Instructor Assessment: A Case Study of Comparing Self and Peer Assessment with Instructor Assessment Under a Networked Innovative Assessment Procedures. International Journal of Instructional Media. 29, 4, p395.
Liu, T., Wang, H., Liang, T., Chan, T. & Yang, J. (2002) Applying wireless technologies to build a highly interactive learning environment. In Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on WMTE 2002 (eds. M. Milrad, U. Hoppe & Kinshuk), pp. 63–70. IEEE Publications, Los Alamitos, CA
Liu, J. S., & Randall, W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2, 3, 193-228.
Liu, T., Wang, H., Liang, T., Chan, T., Ko, W., & Yang, J. (2003). Wireless and mobile technologies to enhance teaching and learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 3, 371-382.
Liu, T. C., & Ko H. W., & Wang Y., & Wei L. H. & Chan, T. W. (2004). Applying wireless and mobile technology to enhance productive interaction. IEEE International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Technologies in Education, WMTE 2003. Taiwan, Jung-Li.
MacArthur, C.A., & Schwartz, S. S. & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 6, 201-210
McDonnell, J. T. (1994). Peer tutoring: A pilot scheme among computer science undergraduates. Mentoring and Tutoring, 2, 2, 3-10.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in student writing projects. Journal of Education for Business, 70, 220-223.
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.
Orpen, C. (1982). Student vs. lecturer assessment of learning: A research note. Higher Education, 11, 567-572.
Olson, V. (1990). The revision process of six-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational, 84, 1, 22-29.
Pond, K., & Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 314-323.
Pain, R., & mowl, g. (1996). Improving geography essay writing using innovative assessment. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20, 19-31.
Roschelle J., & Pea R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side：How wireless handhelds may change CSCL. In Proceedings of the CSCL''02, Boulder, Colorado.
Samson, D. C. (1992). Writing assignments for a graduate course in technical writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22, 211-219.
Shriver, K. A. (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs. Written Communication, 9, 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, 249-264.
Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interaction. Mind, Culture and Activity, 8, 1 , 42-76.
Shaw, V. N. (2002). Peer Review as a Motivating Device in the Training of Writing Skills for College Students. Journal of College Reading and Learning. 33, 1, p68-76.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Brand, Saskia. M., & Jeroen J. G. ( 2003). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 29, 1, p23.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research. 68, 3, p249.
Topping K. J., & Smith, E. F., & Swanson I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 25, 2, p149.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ; Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986).Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Van Lehn, K. A., & Chi, M. T. H., & Baggett, W., & Murray, R. C. (1995). Progress report: Towards a theory learnng during tutoring. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero., & Maria, C. M. (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.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). New starts and different kinds of failure. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden(Eds.), Learning to write: First language, second language(pp. 34-47). New York: Longman Inc.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing. 10, 4, 251-276.