本研究的目的主要在探討班內與班外同儕回應對於國小三年級學生寫作之表現與感受的影響，在先前開發的寫作系統「我的出版社」中加入同儕回應系統「審查部」，協助同儕回應活動的進行。活動方式分為班內形式與班外形式，班內同儕回應是指老師分配班級內的學生以小組形式進行，各組員間互相評論對方文章；而班外同儕回應是指系統透過演算法配對不同班級間學生的互評關係，且具有匿名性。
　　本研究實驗對象為中壢市某國小三年級兩個程度相當的班級，共49位學生，男生27人，女生22人。在為期約7週的12堂課程中，進行三回的同儕回應活動，第一回為班內同儕回應，第二回為班外同儕回應，第三回混合班內與班外同儕回應。
研究結果顯示：
（1）學生在評論班內同學文章時較著重在文章表面的問題。
（2）學生文章經由同儕回應後能夠修正7成錯字。
（3）修改後的文章字數增加有限。
（4）學生對於班內同儕回應與班外同儕回應的喜愛程度沒有差異。
（5）學生在使用「我的出版社－審查部」後態度多為積極與正面。

This object of this study is to explore the effects of the face-to-face and online peer response approaches on third-grade students' writing performance and perception.
The new function “Review Department” was implemented based on the previous game-based writing system “My Publishers” to support peer response writing activities, which include two modes of peer response. One is that a teacher groups students and the members in each group know each other as well as the reviewers are from the same group. The other is that writing articles will be automatically assigned to the reviewers who are from other classes by the system. The review processes are double-blind review. In other words, the relation between the author and the reviewers is anonymous.
The participants in this study were 49 third-grade students (27 boys and 22 girls) from two elementary classes in Chungli City.

The findings were as follows:
(1) Students will put more emphasis on the surface level of response when commenting on the articles from their classmates in the same class.
(2) The 70 percent of the wrongly written words in students’ articles could be corrected by conducting peer response writing activities.
(3) The increase of words in the students’ revised articles is limited.
(4) Students’ acceptance of peer response mode is not apparently different between reviewers from the same class and from other classes.
(5) The attitude of students became more active and positive after using "My Publishers - Review Department".

中文文獻
方晴（民86）。在互改互評中提高中學生作文水平。中學語文教學，6(1)，76。
王瑀（民93）。以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現~以行動學輔具教室為例。國立中央大學學習與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，中壢。
吳正吉（民87）。怎樣寫好作文。台北市：天津。
李坤崇（民88）。多元化教學評量。台北：心理。
李博文（民91）。國小高年級學生議論文寫作教學之實驗研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
林素珍（民97）。國中學生讀、寫能力之因素結構分析。北市大語文學報，1，93-130。
施伊穗（民95）。小學生的網路交友世界─以嘉南地區某小學學生為例。中華傳播學會 2006 年學刊，1-22。
胡志強（民92）。在國小自然科實施同儕互評之協同行動研究。國立花蓮師範學院教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮。
張春興（民85）。教育心理學。台北：東華。
許容馨（民 96）。同儕互評學習對兒童論說文評量能力及寫作表現之影響。國立臺北教育大學教育心理與諮商學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
劉旨峰（民 88）。網路同儕評量系統的學生群組分析。國立交通大學資訊科學系碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
鄧文生（民83）。提倡學生批改作文。全國中語會刊語文教學通訊，10（2），10。
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，未出版，台南。
蔡宜勳（民98）。國中學生閱讀與作文能力相關因子解析應用。國文天地，293，38-43。
韓佳玲、于富雲、王千濤、張立杰、陳德懷（民91）。扭轉”匿”勢---匿名對線上同步小組競賽遊戲之影響。第六屆全球華人計算機教育應用大會暨2002年全國教育信息化論壇，頁47~54，6月14-16日，北京，中國大陸。
顏智英（民92）。高中生作文錯別字分析。國文天地，223，36-43
藍鈺婷（民101）。我的週刊：以網路經營遊戲支援國小寫作活動。國立中央大學網路學習科技研究所碩士論文。未出版，中壢。
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。初等教育學報，1，143-167
陳密桃（民 85）。我國臺灣地區國中學生批判思考的相關因素及其教學效果之分析研究。教育學刊，12，71-148。

英文文獻
Barlett, E. J. (1981). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic component. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Berg, 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.
Bornstein, R. F. (1993). Costs and benefits of reviewer anonymity: A survey of journal editors and manuscript reviewers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(3), 355-370.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C: The Washington University School of Education and Human Development.
Brindley C. & Schofield S. (1998). Peer Assessment Undergraduate Programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79-90.
Crookes, G., Davis, K. A., & Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. Tesol Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.
Chaudron, C. (1983). Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision. RELC Journal, 15, 1–14.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.
Clare, L., Valdes, R., & Patthey-Chavez, G. G. (2000). Learning to write in urban elementary and middle schools: An investigation of teachers' written feedback on student compositions. Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
Falchikov, N. (1995).Peer feedback marking-Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255-276.
Hull, G. A. (1984). The Editing Process in Writing: A Performance Study of Experts and Novices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Kane, L. (2004). Educators, learners and active learning methodologies. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(3), 275-286.
Keene, E. O., Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension Strategy Instruction. UK: Heinemann.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 7, 305-313.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 224-231.
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-17.
Liu, E. Z., Lin, S. S., 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.
Mendonca, C. and K. E. Johnson. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28(4), 745–69.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students' communicative power. In D.Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students(pp. 207-219).White Plains, NY: Longman.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writer use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL QUARTERLY, 27(1), 135-141.
Olson, M.W., & Raffeld, P. (1987). The effects of written comments on the quality of student compositions and the learning of content. Reading Psychology, 4, 273-293.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113-132.
Urzua, C. (1987). “You stopped too soon”: second language children composing and revising. TESOL quarterly, 21(2), 279-304.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, 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.
Vygotsky, L. L. S. (1986). Thougth and Language (Vol. 29). The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latare, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303-311.
Zimmerman, S., & Hutchins, C. (2003). Seven keys to comprehension: How to help your kids read it and get it. New York: Three Rivers.