國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	孫庭芳 Ting-fang Sun
論文名稱：	英文學術論文篇章寫作教學研究: 學生的認知及需求 An Intervention Study on the Rhetorical Structures of Research Papers: Students' Perceptions and Needs
指導教授：	馮和平 Feng, Ho-Ping
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2011
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	125
中文關鍵詞：	學術論文寫作、篇章結構
英文關鍵詞：	academic writing, rhetorical structure
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：405 下載：5
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究宗旨為測試英文學術寫作課程對於教論文寫作中的「前言」及「討論」這兩個部分的效用。受試者為二十二位研究生，他們來自北部一所大學生命科學研究所。此研究是採用前測及後測的準實驗模式。前測的分數來自於學生在課程開始時所交之文章的評量結果。在第一堂課時，受試者填寫一份背景問卷，這份問卷是針對受試者的過去寫作經驗做調查。在前測後，受試者參與學術文章中的「前言」及「討論」章節的教學。在前後八次，每次三小時的教學課程中，前五次是教授「前言」的寫作。而後三次的教學是教授「討論」的寫作。課程完成後進行後測。後測是要求根據課堂中所學到章法結構，將前測文章加以修改。此外，受試者在最後一堂課時，填寫一份評量問卷。這份問卷是針對受試者的過去寫作經驗及對此寫作工作坊的評價做調查。在課程結束後，研究者挑選六位學生進行個別訪談，目的在於更深入的了解學生的困難及需要，每次訪談時間為90分鐘。
在比較受試者「前言」及「討論」的前測及後測的分數後，發現受試者在「前言」的分數並無顯著的進步，但在「討論」的分數卻有顯著的進步。結果顯示，經過一個月的教學，學生在「前言」這部分的表現並未達到統計上顯著的結果。而「討論」部分則有顯著的進步。這樣的差別也許是源自於有改寫「討論」部分的學生，大部分為博士生。他們相較於碩士生而言，有較多的學術寫作經驗。
在對問卷及訪談的資料作分析後，發現受試者一般寫作(general writing)最主要的問題是字彙及文法的不足。而在學術寫作方面，則是沒有章法的技巧及文章結構方面的知識。受試者也反應他們需要多一些實際分析他們領域學術文章章法結構的練習。對於學術寫作老師的背景，受試者期望最好能夠是教專業領域的老師與教英文寫作的老師能夠一起協同教學。受試者也表達了他們迫切地需要一個寫作中心來提供文章編修的服務及安排各種寫作的課程。受試者心目中最理想的編修者是他們領域的英文母語人士。此外，學生似乎在他們基礎的英文能力上，需要一些幫助。研究者建議在學術寫作的課程之外，學生也非常需要關於英文基本寫作方面的課程來提升他們基本的英文能力。如果學生有足夠的基本英文寫作能力，將有助於學生提升他們的學術寫作的能力。

The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of an EAP writing workshop that focused on the teaching of introduction and discussion sections in research papers. The participants included 22 graduate students from the Life Science department in a university in northern Taiwan. This study employed a one group quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design. In the first class, participants submitted a paper they wrote before, from which the pre-test score was obtained.
Participants also filled in a background questionnaire, which surveyed students’ experiences in learning writing in English. After that, students received instructions in the writing of research article introduction and discussion sections. For the introduction section, students received about fifteen hours of instruction; for the discussion section, students received about nine hours of instruction. For the post-test, participants revised their pre-test writing samples based on what they learned in the class. At the last meeting, the participants were asked to fill in an evaluative questionnaire, eliciting their opinions on the workshop. At the end of the workshop, six participants were selected to participate in individual interview, with each interview lasting 90 minutes.
The comparison of the pretest and post-test scores on the rhetorical structure of the introduction and discussion sections showed that the participants did not improve significantly in the introduction section, but they did in the discussion section. The results indicated this one-month EAP writing workshop did not have statistically significant results on the introduction section. The discussion section was statistically significant, which may be related to the higher percentage of doctoral students handed in their discussion sections.
The analysis of the questionnaire and interview data revealed that the participants’major problems for general writing lied in incompetence in vocabulary and grammar. The major challenge they had for academic writing was their lack of rhetorical skills and knowledge for organization. The participants wanted to have more hands-on analyses of the papers taken from their fields by themselves during the class. As with the EAP writing instructor, the participants wanted to have both the content area teacher and the language teacher to instruct the class together. The participants also expressed their urgent need for a writing center that can offer editorial services and courses. The ideal editor would be a native speaker from their field. The participants seem to be weak at their fundamental English ability. It is suggested that more general writing courses can be offered to the students to raise their basic competence in English. Students will be more competent to learn to write EAP writing when they are equipped with the general writing ability.

Chinese Abstract    i
English Abstract    iii
Acknowledgements    v
Table of Contents    vii

Chapter One  Introduction    1
Background and Motivation    1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions    4
Significance of the Study    5
Definition of Terms    6

Chapter Two  Literature Review    8
EAP Writing Difficulties for NNS Student Writers in Taiwan    8
Genre Analysis     9
      Micro-level Linguistic Analysis    10
Macro-level Linguistic Analysis    13
          The Introduction Section    13
          The Discussion Section    16
Academic Writing Instruction    19
The Disciplinary Knowledge of the Instructors    19
Approaches in EAP Writing Instruction    22
Intervention Studies    24
Summary    31

Chapter Three   Method    33
Research Design    33
      Participants    33
      Research Site     35
The Workshop and the Materials    35
      The Workshop    35
      Materials…………………………………………………………………… 38
Data Collection Procedures    39
      Background Questionnaire    39
      Pre-test and Post-test    40
The Evaluative Questionnaire    41
      Interviews    41
   Instruments    42
Data Sources and Data Analysis Procedures    44

Chapter Four   Results and Discussion    48
   Analysis of the Introduction Section    48
Analysis of the Discussion Section    50
   Analysis of Participants’ Responses to the Background Questionnaire    54
      Self-evaluation of English Ability    54
      Difficulties in Writing    55
      Coping Strategies    56
   Analysis of Participants’ Responses to the Evaluative Questionnaire    57
   Analysis of the Interview Data    67
      Students’ Difficulties in Academic Writing in English    67
      Students’ Strategies to Cope with Their Problems    69
      Effects of the Workshop    71
      Students’ Problems in the Revision Process    72
      Students’ Needs in the Future    74

Chapter Five    Conclusion    78
Summary of Major Findings    78
   Effects of a Short-term EAP Writing Workshop Instruction    78
   Students’ Difficulties in Writing    78
   Students’ Opinions on Organizing Academic Workshops    79
Pedagogical Implications    80
Limitations of the Study    81
Suggestions for Future Research    82

References      84


Appendixes     99
Appendix  A  Background Questionnaire (Chinese Version)    99
Appendix  A  Background Questionnaire (English Version)    104
Appendix  B  The Evaluative Questionnaire (Chinese Version)    109
Appendix  B  The Evaluative Questionnaire (English Version)    112
Appendix  C  Interview Questions (Chinese Version)    115
Appendix  C  Interview Questions (English Version)    116
Appendix  D  Analytic Rubric for the Writing of the Introduction    117
Appendix  E  Analytic Rubric for the Writing of the Discussion    119
Appendix  F  A Student’s Sample of the Pre-test on the Introduction Section    121
Appendix  G  A Student’s Sample of the Post-test on the Introduction Section    122
Appendix  H  A Student’s Sample of the Pre-test on the Introduction Section    124
Appendix  I  A Student’s Sample of the Post-test on the Introduction Section    125


List of Tables
Table 1. Composition of the Participants    34
Table 2. Comparison of Scores on Rhetorical Convention in the Introduction Section    49
Table 3. Comparison of Scores on Rhetorical Convention in the Discussion Section
    51
Table 4. Self-evaluation of General English Ability    54
Table 5. Self-evaluation of Ability in Reading and Writing for Academic Purposes    55
Table 6. Students’ Difficulties in Writing General English    56
Table 7. Strategies in Coping with Writing Problems    57
Table 8. Analysis of Responses to Class Time    58
Table 9. Analysis of Responses to Class Size and Student Population    59
Table 10. Analysis of Responses to Selection of Content and Materials    60
Table 11. Analysis of Responses to Instruction and Class Activities    62
Table 12. Analysis of Responses to Future Needs    64


List of Figures
Figure 1.   The Schedule and the Content    36


List of Diagrams
Diagram 1.   CARS Model of Moves in Research Paper Introductions    43
                                

Aarons, V., & Salomon, W. A. (1989). The writing center and writing across the curriculum: some observations on theory and practice. Focuses, 2, 91-102.
Ahmad, U. (1997). Research article introductions in Malay: rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of Academic Discourse (pp. 273-304). Berlin: mouton de Gryuter.
Belanger, M. (1982). A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussion sections in ten neuroscience journal articles. (mimeo).
Belcher, D. (1995). Writing critically across the curriculum. In D. Belcher and G. Braines (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: essays on research and pedagogy, pp 135- 154.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: language us in professional settings. London: Longman.
Biber, D., Johansson, S, Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, Longman Publications Group.
Braine, G. (1988). Two commentaries on Ruth Spack’s “Initiating ESL Students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go?” TESOL Quarterly, 22, 700- 205.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English
for Specific Purposes, 13, 1994.
Bridge, D., & McLaughlin, T. H. (Eds.). (1994). Education and the market place. London: Falmer Press.
Bunton, D. (2001). Generic moves in Ph. D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 57-75). New York: Longman.
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: the importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 39-52.
Chang, Y. (2010). Automated collocation suggestion in academic writing. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: National Tsing Hua University.
Charney, M. J. & Williams, J. H. (1990). From start to finish: approaches to introductions and conclusions in technical writing textbooks. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 33, 220-225.
Chen, C. (2010). A longitudinal case study of the acquisition of academic vocabulary in writing by EFL Students. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Tsing Hua University.
Cheng, C. (2011). Investigating TESOL master’s thesis projects and thesis advertisement in Taiwan: Current research direction, related factors, and advisement issues. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Chiao Tung University.
Chiu, Y.- H. (2006). Writing for publication: five novice Taiwanese scholars’ composing processes and an analysis of their writings of thesis introductions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundle in published and student disciplinary writing: examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 379-423.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238.
Day, R. (1994). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: an investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of M. Sc. Dissertations, In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text (pp. 128-145). Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP. In: Coulthard, M. (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis. Routledge, London, pp. 219-228.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1995a). Common-core and specific approaches to the teaching of academic writing. In Belcher, D., & Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: essays on research and pedagogy, pp. 293-312.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1995b). Team-teaching in EAP: changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach. In Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, pp. 225-238.
Fairgley, L., & Hansen, K. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. College Composition and Communication, 36, 178-182.
Fan, Y. (2007). Topical structure analysis as an alternative learning strategy for coherent writing. Unpublished master thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Fan, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2006). Topical structure analysis of doctoral students’ writing: by means of general English proficiency writing test. The Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing (pp. 371-377).
Fleucher, P. (1995). Border trafficking in the writing lab. Community College Journal, 65, 10-12.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 243-264.
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. In J. Flowerdew and M. Peacock (Eds.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Frodsen, J. (1995). Negotiating the syllabus: a learning-centered, interactive approach to ESL graduate writing course design. In D. Belcher and G. Braines (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: essays on research and pedagogy,
pp. 331-350.
Golebiowski, Z. (1999).Application of Swales’ model in the analysis of research papers by Polish authors. IRAL, 37, 231-247.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
Gupta, R. (1995). Managing general and specific information in introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 59-75.
Harris, M. (1995). From the (writing) center to the edge: moving writers along the Internet. Clearing House, 69, 2125.
Herrington, A. (1985). Classrooms as forums for reasoning and writing. College Composition and Communication, 36, 404-413.
Hill, S. S., Soppelsa, B. F., & West, G. K. (1982). Teaching ESL students to read and write experimental research papers. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 333-347.
Hirvela, A. (1997). “Disciplinary portfolios” and EAP writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 83-100.
Hopkins, A. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.
Hsiao, C. (2010). Move structure of literature review in Ma theses by Taiwanese TEFL graduates. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: National Cheng Chi University.
Hsieh, W. (2006). Text analysis and online material development for EAP graduate courses: teaching of abstract writing in the field of applied linguistics discipline. Unpublished Master thesis: National Tsing Hua University.
Hsu, Y. (2009). Writing RA introduction: Difficulties and strategies. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Chiao Tung University.
Huang, H., & Liou, H. (2005). An action research study of an academic English writing course for graduate students in Taiwan: students’ needs, perception, and register in the writing. English Teaching & Learning, 30, 45-73.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis
(pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse, Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English for specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor; MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
Jacoby, S., Leech, D., & Holten, C. (1995). A genre-based developmental writing course for undergraduate ESL science majors. In D. Belcher and G. Braines (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: essays on research and pedagogy, pp. 351- 373. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Johns, A. M. (1995a). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 277-291). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Johns, A. M. (1995b). An excellent match: literacy portfolios and ESP. English Teaching Forum, 22, 16-21.
Jones, C. (2001). The relationship between writing centers and improvement in writing ability: an assessment of the literature. Education, 122, 3-20.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles.
English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
Kinneavy, J. (1983). Writing across the curriculum. ADE Bulletin, 76, 7-14.
Kuo, C. W. (2010). An analysis of citations in applied linguistics research articles: Forms, discourse functions, and reporting verbs. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Chiao Tung University.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 121-138.
Kuo, C. (2001). Academic competence: designing an EAP course for Ph. D. students. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on English Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing (pp. 131-143).
Kushner, S. (1997). Tackling the needs of foreign academic writers: a case study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 40, 20-25.
Lau, H. (2001). Affective expressions in academic journal articles: hedging expressions in Taiwanese doctoral students’ writings. The Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on English Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing (pp. 456-467).
Lau, H. (2003). Discourse analysis and EAP instruction: improvements for Taiwanese doctoral students’ abstracts. English Teaching & Learning, 27, 65-77.
Lau, H. (2007). Lexical bundles in Taiwanese doctoral students’ dissertations. NSC Project (NSC-95-2411-H-231-001).
Levis, J. M. & Levis, G. M. (2003). A project-based approach to teaching research writing to nonnative writers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 46, 210-220.
Lewis, R., Whitby, N., & Whitby E. (2007). Essentials of Writing Scientific Papers. Taipei, Jong Wen Books.
Liao, P. (2007). Grammar for the writing of English research papers. Taipei, Jong Wen Books.
Liao, P. (2006). The handbook of research paper writing. Taipei, Jong Wen Books.
Lin, C.- Y. & Hsu, Y.- P. (2005). Patterns and difficulties in summarizing skills: a case study of Taiwanese college students’ academic writing. The Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing (pp. 417-426).
Lin, M. (2007). Effects of online academic vocabulary instruction on EFL college writing. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Liou, H. (2007). A study of using electronic disciplinary portfolios for evaluation of an academic English writing course on graduate students. National Science Council Project. NSC95-2411-H-007-018.
Liou, H., & Chang, C. (2006). Advances in digital language learning center-CANDLE: bilingual corpora and computational scaffolding. National Science Council Project. NSC 92-2524-S007-2, 93/4-2524-S007-001.
Ma, S. (2010). A corpus-based study on reporting results in research articles. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Chiao Tung University.
Martinez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 103-123.
McCulley, G. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 269-282.
Melanger, B, Swales, J., & Fredrickson, K. M. (1988). Journal abstracts from three fields in the United Sates and Sweden: national or disciplinary proclivities? In A. Duszak, Intellectual styles and cross-cultural communication (pp. 251-272). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
National Taiwan University Academic Writing Education Center. Retrieved March 13, 2011 from: http:// www.awec.ntu.edu.tw/
National Tsing Hua University Writing Center. Retrieved March 13, 2011 from:
http://writing.wwlc.nthu.edu.tw/writcent/
North, S. M. (1984a). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46, 433-466.
North, S. M. (1984b). Writing center research: testing our assumptions. In G. A. Olson (Ed.) Writing centers: theory and administration (pp. 24-35). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research papers: structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 119-138.
Orr, T. (2001). English language education for specific professional needs. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication , 44, 207-211.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30, 479-497.
Pearson, S. (1983). The challenge of Mai Chung: teaching technical writing to the foreign-born professional in industry. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 383-399.
Pemberton, M. A. (1995). Rethinking the WAC/writing center connection. The Writing Center Journal, 15, 116-133.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The semantic structure of computer science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 139-160.
Powers, S. (1991). What composition teachers need to know about writing centers. Freshman English News, 19, 15-21.
Richards, R. T. (1988). Thesis/dissertation writing for EFL students: an ESP course design. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 171-180.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 93-113.
Salverda, R. (2002). Language diversity and international communication. English Today, 18, 3-11.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141-156.
Sano, H. (2002). The world’s lingua franca of science. English Today, 18, 45-49.
Santos, M. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16, 481-499.
Scanolon, L. C. (1986). Recruiting and training tutors for cross-disciplinary writing programs. Writing Center Journal, 6, 37-41.
Shaw, P. (1991). Science research students’ composting processes. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 189-206.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: how far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22, 29-52.
St. John, M. J. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 113-120.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-191.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ identity: exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, S23-S39.
Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 247-269.
Taylor, G., & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied Linguistics, 12, 319-336.
Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, Y. (2006). Effects of online academic English materials on graduate students’ writing: introductions in research articles of the applied linguistic disciplines. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Tsing Hua University.
Valentine, D. (1999). A business writing center serves writing requirements in a pre-professional program. Business Communication Quarterly, 62, 101-103.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: prentice Hall Regents.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman.
White, R. & McGovern, D. (1994). Writing. Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix ELT.
Wilkinson, A. M. (1991). The scientist’s handbook for writing papers and dissertations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yang, P. (2010). WriteAhead: An abstracts writing assistant system for academic writing. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Tsing Hua University.
Yang, S. (2006). A needs analysis of English: perceptions of faculty and doctoral students. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Chiao Tung University.
Yang, Y. (2006). Metadiscourse instruction in EAP courses: feasibility and acceptability. Unpublished Master Thesis: National Tsing Hua University.
Yang, Y. & Hsu, Y. (2005). Are you a qualified story teller or orator? – metadiscourse in Taiwanese doctoral students’ writings. The Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing (pp. 280-287).

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文