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：	張碧珠 Pi-Chu Chang
論文名稱：	過程取向英文作文教學課程對台灣高中生整體英文寫作能力之成效 The Effects of the Process Writing Instruction on Taiwanese High School Students’ Overall English Writing Ability
指導教授：	張武昌 Chang, Wu-Chang
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2003
畢業學年度：	91
語文別：	英文
中文關鍵詞：	過程取向、英文作文教學、高中生英文寫作能力
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：249 下載：37
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

近年來，隨著快速的國際化腳步，英文寫作在第二外語的習得上備受關切與注重，對高中生而言無論是升學或未來之生涯準備，英文書寫能力都是不可漠視的能力。
基於上述之原因，研究者遂著手參考相關的寫作教學書籍並參與大學入學考試中心英語文表達能力與全民英檢中級寫作測驗之評閱訓練，並以實務心得設計一套符合高中生的英文寫作教學實驗課程，期望英文寫作課不再是學生的夢魘與教師的沉重負擔。

壹、研究方法
(一) 本行動研究以國立新店高中八十六位高三的學生為本實驗教學之對象。以
研究者和國立台灣師範大學大蔡錫濤博士共同編製的高中英文作文態度量表，實施前測（90.9.14）和後測（實驗組：90.11.21，控制組：91.3.15）
(二) 以研究者自編的段落寫作和自由寫作教學活動設計問卷調查表和學生非結構式的訪談(實驗組：90.11.28, 控制組：91.3. 28) 作為本研究的輔助資料。
(三) 實施自由寫作之前測（實驗組和控制組：90.9.14），並請全民英檢中級寫作之評分員（國立新店高中張清秀老師和台北縣立安康完全中學劉淑惠老師）交互評閱學生作文，以求得客觀的寫作能力參照值。俟本研究課程結束，實施後測（實驗組：90.11.21, 控制組：91.3.15），並請全民英檢中級寫作之評分員：張老師和劉老師再次交互評閱學生作文以求得客觀的寫作能力參照值，以觀察學習者寫作能力是否增強。在評閱過程中，評分員對同一份作文試卷評閱分數不同時，則請第三位評分員再次評閱以示客觀公正。

貳、研究結果
(一) 任務取向的教學模式降低學習焦慮並促進學生的表達能力。
(二) 接受過過程寫作課程訓練的學生內在學習動機較強，寫作意願和自信心高於未接受過程寫作者。
(三) 學生英文作文常犯的錯誤是：
(1) 句型結構
(2) 用字
(3) 動詞和主詞的一致性、名詞和代名詞的一致性、名詞的單複數。
除以上顯著成效，本研究尚有以下幾點可為未來研究之進一步探討：
(一) 高中英文作文常犯錯誤之診斷。
(二) 同儕批閱在高文英文教學上之可行性與成效。
(三) 英文寫作課程的實施時間和其影響學生學習英文寫作之因素。

參、研究限制
由於本研究為實際教學情境中所進行之行動研究，因此本研究之限制即一般行動研究典型之限制。本研究僅以研究者所任教之兩個班級為對象，研究目的著重以學校本位課程之設計，探討學生在英語文寫作上遭遇的瓶頸，並以建構式取向的教學模式，引領學習者習得如何以英文適切地敘述事物、表達意見。因此，研究結果和發現雖具參考價值，若欲據以推論其在不同學校與不同程度學生之教學應用，尚需進ㄧ步探究。

Owing to its importance on Scholastic Aptitude English Test (SAET) or students’ future career needs, teaching writing in the EFL class has received more and more attention in recent years. The present research attempts to offer English teachers a useful and effective way to teach writing through investigating the effectiveness of process task-based writing curriculum.
Eighty-six students in the third year of National Hsin Tien Senior High School joined the study and a triangular approach was used as the methodology. The study have been tested through the statistical analysis of two kinds of questionnaires—The Writing Attitude Questionnaire and the Viewpoints of Writing Tasks, and two tests—Pre & Post Writing Proficiency Tests as well as one interview—semi-structured group interview. The conclusions noted: (1) Process writing reduces students’ anxiety while writing and facilitates students’ expression of ideas, (2) The Experiment Group shows higher intrinsic motivation, confidence, and willingness in writing composition, and (3) the major errors of students’ writing are related to sentence construction, word usage, agreement between verbs and subjects, between nouns and pronouns, and numerals. However, there are still some areas that need further investigation on: (1) the proper treatment of students’ errors, (2) the effectiveness to start peer revision in the senior high writing classroom, and (3) the crucial time to start writing instruction.
This study was conducted on a school-based and community-based writing curriculum executed only in one senior high school in Taipei County, Taiwan; therefore, the findings and conclusions might not apply to all senior highs in Taiwan. For wider implication and implementation, there should be further studies involving different students or different senior high schools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………i
ENHLISH ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………ii
CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF APPEDICES……………………………………….…………….……….viii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………….……………………………x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………….…………………..................xiv
CHAPTERS
I.    INTRODUCTION
1.1    Background and Issues………………………………….……………... 1
1.2    Significance of This Study……………………………………………...2
1.3    Purpose of the Study……………………………………………….……4
1.4    Statement of the Problem…………………………….….………………5
1.5    The Limitations of the Study……………………………………………6

II.    LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1    Second Language Teaching and Learning……………….……………...7
2.2    The Trend of Teaching Writing in Second Language Acquisition………………………………………………………………9
2.2.1    An Overview in Composition Research……………...…….…...9
2.2.1.1 Controlled Composition……..………………………... ..9
2.2.1.2 Contrastive Rhetoric Approach……….………………..10
2.2.1.3 The Process Approach……………………….………...11
2.2.1.4 Classroom Process Approach……………………...…..12
2.2.1.5 Content-based Approach………………………………15
2.2.2    Summary………………………………………………………16
2.3    Current Writing Teaching in EFL………………………………….….17
2.3.1    Writing as a Process vs. Writing as a Product………………….18
2.3.2    Skilled Writers vs. Unskilled Writers…………...……………..20
2.3.3    Current Perspectives on the EFL Writing Tasks……………….21
2.3.4    Learning Strategies and Writing Process………………………24
2.4    Constructivists’ Social Cognitive Theory……………………………...26
2.4.1    Piagetian Constructivism………………………………………27
2.4.2    Vygotsky’s Social-cultural Theory……………..………………27
2.5    Writing Proficiency Test in Taiwan…………………………………….31
2.5.1    The Development of Writing Tasks in the JCEE……..………..31
2.5.2    GEPT Immediate Writing Proficiency Test of LTTC………….38
2.5.3    Summary……………………………………………………….39

III.    METHODOLOGY
3.1    Subjects………………………………………………….……………. 40
3.2    Pilot Study……………………………………………………………...41
3.3    Procedure………………………………………………………………42
3.3.1    Pretest……………………………………………… ………….42
3.3.2    Posttest…………………………………………………………43
3.5  Instruments……………………………………………………………..43
3.5.1  Questionnaires………………………………………………….44
3.5.1.1  The Writing Attitude Questionnaire………………….44
3.5.1.2  The Viewpoints on Writing Task Questionnaire……..47
3.5.1.3  Semi-structured Group Interview……….……………47
3.5.1.4  Performance Data—Pre & Post—Writing Proficiency Test…………………….…………………………….48
3.5.2 Graders………………………………………….………………..48
IV.    TASK-BASED CURRICULUM CURRICULUM
4.1    Task-based Writing Curriculum………………………………………..50
4.1.1    Cooperation and Collaboration, Interaction, and Question…….52
4.1.2    Peer Conference………………………………………………..54
4.2    Outline of Syllabus…………………………………….……………….55
4.2.1    Concept Transferring with Exercise……………………………57
4.2.2    Writing Through Reading………………………………………75
4.2.3    Writing Through Media………………………………………...84
4.2.4    Summary…………………………………………………….…86
4.3    Writing Instruction……………………………………………………..86

V.    DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
5.1    Finalizing the Writing Attitude Questionnaire (WQA) with Item Analysis, Factor Analysis as well as the Measurement of Reliability and Validity…………………………………………………………………91
5.1.1    Item Analysis…………………………………….…………….91
5.1.2    Factor Analysis………………………………….……………..91
5.1.3    Reliability……………………………………………………...92
5.1.4    Validity…………………………………………………………92
5.2    Statistical Analysis of the WQA……………………….……………....93
5.2.1    Pretest and Posttest of the WQA……………..………………...93
5.2.1.1    Homogeneity Test and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)…………………………………….…….94
5.2.1.2    Comparison of the Participants’ Responses to Each Item
Between the Experimental and the Control in the Pre & Post Test……………………………………………...99
5.2.1.3    Findings of the Analysis……………………………102
5.3    Statistical Analysis of Teaching Activities
Questionnaires………………………………………………………..102
5.3.1    Process Writing Tasks for the Experimental Group…………..103
5.3.2    Free Writing Tasks for the Control Group……………………108
5.4    The Analysis of Pre & Post Writing Proficiency Test………………..124
5.5    Error Analysis on the Selected Subjects’ Writings…………………...126

VI.    CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
6.1    Major Findings………………………………………….……………133
6.2    Other Findings………………………………………………………..137
6.3    Reflections on Teaching English Writing…………….………………144
6.4    Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………..146
6.4.1    Suggestions on Instruction Techniques………………………148
6.4.2    Suggestions on Evaluation……………………………………150
6.5    Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study……………………….150
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….152






LIST OF APPENDICES
         Page
APPENDIX I
English Writing Proficiency Test Of JCEE & the GEPT
Intermediate Writing Proficiency Test………………………………….…………..159
APPENDIX II
Data for Piloting the Writing Attitude Questionnaire………………………………177
APPENDIX III
Pilot Sample of the Writing Attitude Questionnaire…………….………………….193
APPENDIX IV
Standardized Sample of the Writing Attitude Questionnaire……………………...197
APPENDIX V
The Viewpoints of Writing Tasks Questionnaire…………………..………………200
APPENDIX VI
Pre- Writing Proficiency Test……………………………………………………….203
APPENDIX VII
Post- Writing Proficiency Test…………………………………….………………..204
APPENDIX VIII
Guidelines for Semi-structured Interview………………………..…………………205
APPENDIX IX
Chinese Transcript of Semi-structured Interview…………….…………………….206
APPENDIX X
Chinese Version of Data Presentation on the Pre & Pro Writing Attitude
Questionnaire of the Experiment Group and the Control Group…………………...214
APPENDIX XI
The Score Changes of Each Item of the Writing Attitude Questionnaire…………..219
APPENDIX XII
Subjects’ Learning Background Data………………………………………………222
APPENDIX XIII
Sibjects’ View Points of Writing Tasks about Process Writing and Free Writing….226
APPENDIX XIV
Error Analysis of the Selected Students’ Writing………………..…………………241
APPENDIX XV
An Example of Students’ Portfolio……………………………….………………. 255


















LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 2.1
Traditional and Experimental Education Model Compared…...……………………...8
TABLE 2.2
The Scoring Criterion of English Proficiency Test of JCEE Since 1993…………………………………………………………………………………..36
TABLE 2.3
The Scoring Criterion in 2000: scoring guide for marking testee’s composition…....37
TABLE 2.4
Scoring Guide of The GEPT Intermediate English Writing Proficiency Test……….39
TABLE 3.1
Learning Background of the Survey Groups………………………………………...40
TABLE 4.1
Process Writing Syllabus for the Experimental Group………………………………55
TABLE 4.2
Free Writing Syllabus for both the Experimental Group and the Control Group……56
TABLE 5.1
Summary of Factor Extraction Sums of Squared Loading…………………………..92
TABLE 5.2
The Comparison of the Mean & Standard Deviation for the Pre-Post Tests………...93
TABLE 5.3
Summary of the Homogeneity Test for the Within Group Regression Coefficient….94
TABLE 5.4
Summary of Analysis of Covariance…………………………….…………………..94

TABLE 5.5
Four Factors Adjusted Means………………………………………………………..94
TABLE 5.6
Summary of Homogeneity Test for the Within Group Regression Confident—Confidence……………………………………………………………...95TABLE 5.7
Summary of Analysis of Covariance—Confidence…………………….…………....95
TABLE 5.8
Confidence Adjusted Means…………………………………………………..……..96
TABLE 5.9
Summary of Homogeneity Test for the Within Group Regression
Coefficient—Anxiety……………………………………………….…………..……96
TABLE 5.10
Summary of Analysis of Covariance—Anxiety………………………….….………96
TABLE 5.11
Anxiety Adjusted Means………………………………………….…………….…...96
TABLE 5.12
Summary of Homogeneity Test for the Within Group Regression
Coefficient—Usefulness…………………………………………..…………….…...96
TABLE 5.13
Summary for the Regression Line of the Two Groups—Usefulness…………..…….97
TABLE 5.14
Summary for the Intersection Point and Critical Points of the Regression lines—
Usefulness……………………………………………………………………………98
TABLE 5.15
Summary of Descriptive Statistics for the Score on Usefulness…………………….98
TABLE 5.16
Summary of Homogeneity Test for the Within Group Regression Coefficient—Preference…………………………………………………………….98
TABLE 5.17
Summary of Analysis of Covariance—Preference………………………………….98
TABLE 5.18
Preference Adjusted Means…………………………………………………………99
TABLE 5.19
Summary of the Score Changes Related to the Confidence………………………...99
TABLE 5.20
Summary of the Score Changes Related to the Anxiety……………………………100
TABLE 5.21
Summary of the Score Changes Related to the Usefulness………………………...101
TABLE 5.22
Summary of the Score Changes Related to the Preference…………….…………...102
TABLE 5.23
Preferences for Likes or Dislikes in Process Writing Tasks ……………………….103
TABLE 5.24
Effectiveness of Writing Tasks in Process Writing………….……………………..104
TABLE 5.25
The Frequency of Preference for the Process Writing Tasks…………….…………104
TABLE 5.26
The Characteristic of Each Unit on Process Writing……………………………….105
TABLE 5.27
Summary of the Viewpoints on Free Writing Tasks of the Two Groups…….……..109

TABLE 5.28
Summary of the Comments on the Viewpoints on Writing Tasks in Free Writing Curriculum…………………………………………………………………………110
TABLE 5.29
The Frequency of Preference in Free Writing Tasks……………….………………112
TABLE 5.30
The Characteristic of Each Unit on Free Writing…………………….…….………112
TABLE 5.31
The Result of Pre vs. Post Writing Proficiency Test of the Control Group………...124
TABLE 5.32
The Result of Pre vs. Post Writing Proficiency Test of the Experimental Group.….125
TABLE 5.33
Error Analysis (Class 302: Iris)………………………………………….…………127
TABLE 5.34
Error Analysis (Class 302: Judy)…………………………………………………...128
TABLE 5.35
Error Analysis (Class 302: Chris)…………………………………………….…….128
TABLE 5.36
Error Analysis (Class 308: Shirley)………………………………………….……..129
TABLE 5.37
Error Analysis (Class 308: Sharon)………………………………………………...129
TABLE 5.38
Error Analysis (Class 308: Grant)…………………………………………….……130
TABLE 5.39
Total Error Analysis of Selected Subjects…………………………………………132
(The Experimental Class 302)
TABLE 5.40
Total Error Analysis of Selected Subjects………………………………………….132
(The Control Class 308)



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 The Division of Teaching Skills…………………………………………87
Figure 5.1 Within Group Regression Line for Usefulness…………………………..97
                                

Ajaafreh, Ali. (1992). Negative Feedback in Second Language Learning and the Zone of Proximal Development. Diss., Univ. of Delaware. New York.
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implication. (2nd Ed.) N. Y.：W. H. Freeman and Company.
Anthony, T. P. (1985). Writing in EAP: Climate and process. ESP Newsletter, 95, 1-6
Arnaudet, Martin L., & Barrett, Mary Ellen. (1990). Paragraph Development—A Guide for Students of English. Prentice Hall Regents.
Au, S. Y. (1998). A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social psychological theory of second-language（L2）learning. Language Learning, 38.
Bastidas, J. A. 1996. The Teaching portfolio: A tool to become a reflective teacher. English Teaching Forum. July/October: 24-28.
Beach, R., & Birdwell, L.S. (Eds). (1984). New directions in composition research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Beach, R., & Bridwell, L. (1984). Learning through writing: A rationale for writing across the curriculum. In A.D. Pellegini & T. D. Yawkey (Eds.), The development of oral and written language in social contexts. (pp. 183-198) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blanton, Linda London. (1989). Composition Practice-Book 1. Heinle & Heinle.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguil, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
Chang, W. Vincent. (2000). Test of Written English in Joint College Entrance Exam in Taiwan: Development and Innovation. The Third International Conference on English Language Testing in Asia. Hong Kong Examination Authority.
Clement, R. & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Orientations in second language acquisition: The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33(3), 273-91.
Conrad, Susan M., & Goldstein, Lynn M., (1990). Student Input and Negotiation of Meaning in ESL Writing Conferences. TESOL QUARTERLY, 24(3), Autumn.
Cumming, Alister. (2001). ESF/EFL instructors’ practices for writing assessment: specific purpose or general purposes? Modern Language Journal, 208-223.
Dewey, John. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath Company.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, 40(1), 1025.
Driver, R., Aasoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing In C. Mcknight et al. (Eds.), Hypertext：A Psychological Perspective. England：Longman.
Eerris, Dana R. (1997 Summer) The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 2.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Imes, A.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a model of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.
Finney, Susan. (2000). Keep the Rest of the Class Reading & Writing …While you Teach Small Groups. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Flower, L. S. (1985). Rhetorical problem solving：Cognition and professional writing. From ERIC ED, 267-400.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981a). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229-224.
Fulwiler, T. (1982). Writing: An act of cognition. In C. W. Griffin (Ed.), Teaching writing in all disciplines (pp. 15-25). San Francisco: Jossey-bass.
Gardner R. C., & Symthe, P. C. (1981). On the development of the attitude/motivation test battery. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37, 510-25.
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., Moorcroft, R., & Evers, F. T. (1987). Second language attrition：The role of motivation and use. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 29-47.
Gardner, Robert C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role and Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold
Garegagliano, Arlen. Kelley Curtis. (2001). Writing from Within. Cambridge University Press.
Gergen, K. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L. Steffe & J.
Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Giles, H. & Byrne, J. L. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1, 17-40.
Gleason, Jean Berko, & Ratner, Nan Bernstein. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gorger, D., Bull, P., & Fletcher, R. (1981). The construction and validation of a questionnaire for measuring attitudes towards learning foreign languages. Educational Review, 33. 223-30.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at a work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D.H. (1975). An examination of the writing processes of seven-year-old children. Research in the Teaching English. 9, 227-241.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Fictional Grammar. London: Arnold
Hannafin, M. J. & Land, S. M. (1997). The Foundations And Assumptions of Technology-Enhanced Students Centered Learning Environments. Instructional Science, 25, pp 167-202.
Hartmann, Pamela & Mentel, James. (1997). A Reading/Writing Book. London: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113.
Hedge T. (1988) Writing. O.U. P.
Hewitt G. (1995). A Portfolio Primer. Teaching, collecting and assessing student writing. Heineman
Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20:445-462.
Jacobson, M. J. & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext Learning Environment, Cognitive Flexibility, And The Transfer Of Complex Knowledge: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(4), 301-333.
Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1995). Learning with Hypertext Learning Environments：Theory, Design, and Research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(4), 321-364.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992a). What are Cognitive Tools？In Piet A. M. Kommers et al. (Eds.), Cognitive Tools for Learning. Germany: Springer-Veriag Berlin Heidelberg.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992b). Designing Hypertext for Learning. In Eileen Scanlon et al. (Eds.), New Directions in Educational Technology. Germany: Springer-Veriag Berlin Heidelberg.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992c). Evaluating Constructivist Learning. In Thomas M. Duffy et al. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction：a conversation. New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992d). Manifesto for a constructivist approach to technology. In Terry Mayes et al. (Eds.), Designing constructivist learning environments. Germany：Springer-Veriag Berlin Heidelberg.
Joyce, Chin & Jessica Wu. (2001). STEP and GEPT: A Concurrent Study of Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Performance on Two Tests. Proceedings of The Fourth International Conference on English Language Testing in Asia. Taipei: College Entrance Examination Center.
Kraemer, R. (1983). Social Psychological factors related to the Arabic among Israeli high school students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 83-105.
Krashen, S. (1983). The Din in the Head：Input and the Language Acquisition Device. Methods That Work. MA：Newbury House.
Lambert, W. E. (1963a). Psychological approached to the study of language Part I：On learning, thinking and human abilities. Modern Language Journal, 14, 51-62.
Lambert, W. E. (1963b). Psychological approached to the study of language Part II： On second language learning and bilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 14, 114-21.
Lambert, W. E. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 91-109.
Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. E. Aboud and R. D. Meade（Eds.）, Cultural factors in learning and education. Bellingham, Washington：Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning.
Larsen, S. C. (1987). Assessing the writing abilities and instructional needs of students. Austin, Texas：Industrial Oaks Boulevard.
Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T. M., & Knuth, R. A. (1993). The Textbook of the Future. Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Lobel, Arnold. (1980). Fables. Mexico: Harper Collin Publishers.
Marcus, Arlene. (1996). Writing Inspiration. Vermont: Pro Lingua Associates.
Massi, Maria Palmira. (2001). Interactive Writing in the EFL Class: A Repertoire of Tasks. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(6)
McCarthy, Tara, (1992). Teaching Genre. New York: Orchard Books
Moore, D. W., Moore, S. A., Cunningham, P. M. & Cunningham. J. W. (1986). Developing readers and writers in the content areas. New York：Longman Inc.
Murray, D.M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research of composing: Point of departure (pp. 85-103).
Newell, G.E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.
Newkirk, T. (1984). Anatomy of a breakthrough: Case study of a college freshman writer. In R. Beach & L.S. Birdwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 131-148). New York: Guilford Press.
Newkirk, T. (1995). The writing conference as performance. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 193-215.
Nunan, D. (1989a). Designing tasks for the composition: Portrait of an emerging field. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.
Nunan, D. (1989b). Toward a collaborative approach to curriculum development: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 9-25.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Nunan, David. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology. London: Longman.
Oller, John W., Jr., and Patricia A. Richard-Amato. (1983). Methods That Work. Rowley, MA：Newbury House.
Pemberton, Carol. (1997). Writing Paragraphs. Allyn & Bacon.
Perkins, D. N. (1992a). Technology Meets Constructivism：Do They Make A Marriage？In T. M. Duffy et al. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction：a conversation. New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Perkins, D. N. (1992b). What Constructivism Demands of the Learner. In T. M. Duffy et al. (Eds.). Constructivism and the technology of instruction：a conversation. New Jersey：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
Perkins, D.N. (1992b). What Constructivism Demands of the Learner: In T.M. Duffy et at. (Eds). Constructivism and the Technology of the Instruction: a conversation. New Jersy: Lawerence Erlbaum Associate. Inc.
Perl, S. (1980) Understanding composing. College Composition, 31, 363-370.
Person, H.D., Fu, G. S., & Lee, S. (1980). An analysis of the relationship between language attitudes and English attainment of secondary students in Hong Kong. Language Learning, 30, 289-316.
Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing process of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students to do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-430.
Ramage, K. (1990). Motivational factors and persistence in foreign language study. Language Learning, 40, 189-219.
Rea, Simon. (2001). Portfolios and Process Writing: A Practical Approach. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(6), June.
Richards, J.C., & Nunan D. (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Robinett, Betty W. (1978). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Minneapolis, MN：University of Minnesota Press.
Rohamn, G. (1965). Pre-writing：The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition Communication, 16, 106-112.
Rritton, J. (1978). The composing processes and the functions of writing. In C.R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research of composing: Point of departure (pp. 13-28). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Ruetten, Mary K. (1997). Developing Composition Skills—Rhetoric and Grammar. New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Santos, M. (1997). Portfolio assessment and the role of learner reflection. English Teaching Forum. April: 10-14.
Scardamalia, M, Bereiter, C. & Goleman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrant (Ed.), What writers know? N. Y. Academic Press.
Schumann, F. M. (1975). Affective factors and the program of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25,209-35.
Schuster, C.I. (1984). Situational sequencing. The Writing Instructor, 3, 177-184.
Scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Sebranek Patrick, Meyer Verne & Kemper Dave. (2000). Write Source 2000. Health.
Shih, M. (1986). Contented-based Approaches to Teaching Academic Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648.
Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues and Directions in ESL. Kroll B. (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insight for the Classroom, pp. 11-23. New York: Cambridge University Press
Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational Psychology. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Sommers, N. (1981). Intentions and revisions. Journal of Basic Writing. 3, 41-49.
SPSS Base 8.0 Applications Guide. (1998). Chicago
Stallard, C. (1974). An anlysis of the writing behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching English, 8: 206-218.
Strong, William. (1994). Sentence Combining: A Composing Book. Singapore: McGraw-Hill International Editions.
Strong, William. (1994). Sentence Combining—A Composing Book. New York: The McGraw-Hill Inc.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. C. U. P.
Thomas, Jenny. (1995). Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction：Aspects of constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism：theory, perspectives, and practice. New York：Teachers College Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wall, S., & Petrovsky, A. (1981). Freshman writers and revision: Results from a survey. Journal of Basic Writing, 3, 109-122.
White R. and V. Arndt. (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.
Yi, Ching-ching. (2001) Practical Ways to Maximize Efficacy of Cooperation. English Teaching. 5(3), 64-85. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University Press.
Zamel, V. (1983). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文