DSpace

National Tsing Hua University Institutional Repository >
人文社會學院 - College of Humanities and Social Sciences >
外國語文學系 >
博碩士論文 - FL Theses >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.nthu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/33175

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor鍾乃森zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorNathan B. Jonesen
dc.contributor.author吳家珍zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorWu Chia-Chenen
dc.creator吳家珍zh_TW
dc.creatorWu Chia-Chenen
dc.date2001zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2009-12-21T20:33:05Z-
dc.date.available2009-12-21T20:33:05Z-
dc.date.issued2001zh_TW
dc.identifier.urihttp://ir.lib.nthu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/33175-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立清華大學zh_TW
dc.description外國語文學系zh_TW
dc.descriptionNH900094003en
dc.description.abstract台灣之大學生英文作文說明文範文結構分析成效之個案研究 範文的使用,在英文寫作教學中,一直是相當普遍但又頗富爭議的教學方法。雖然「結果寫作」和「過程寫作」兩派學者,對英文範文組織教學有不同的看法,但是卻很少有研究探討它們的成效。 此研究主要在探討範文組織教學對大一新生說明文寫作及學習態度的影響,並和沒使用範文的「表達性寫作方法」(expressive writing method)做比較。九個大一新生接受為期六個星期、總共十二篇的英文說明文範文組織教學;八個學生接受以訓練寫作流利度為主的自由寫作。研究結果包括了學生在前後測所寫的說明文、三次訪談、及兩次書面問卷調查。 研究結果顯示,這兩種寫作教學方法,對學生的說明文寫作都有顯著的成效。訪談及問卷結果也顯示,這兩種教學方法本質上可能互補,並對英文寫作過程中不同的寫作階段有幫助。說明文範文組織教學對寫作後期中組織的理解及組織結構的修改有很大的幫助;表達性寫作方法,則對寫作初期的流利度、創造力較有幫助。再者,由於表達性寫作中,大量使用了自由寫作及訓練創造力的活動,使得表達性寫作方法比範文組織教學有趣。根據這些研究結果,文末並提供了一份綜合這兩種寫作方法的課程表,以使學生能習得英文寫作中的多種面向,並維持英文寫作的興趣。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractABSTRACT The use of model essays has been a fairly common yet controversial technique in the teaching of EFL/ESL writing. Both product-oriented and process-oriented researchers hold different views on their uses in the teaching of organizational aspects. However, few research studies have investigated their effects in writing classes. The purpose of this study was thus to ascertain the effect of rhetorical modeling on university freshmen’s writing of English expository essays and learning attitude as compared to a more expressive writing method without the use of model essays. Nine foreign language majors in the rhetorical analysis group received explicit instruction on organization in 12 expository model essays in the six-week classes, whereas eight in the expressive writing group emphasized the development of creativity, writing fluency, and idea generation via the freewriting techniques. All of the students were asked to write an expository essay at the beginning and at the end of the study. The data analyzed in this study consisted of the participants’ sample essays in the pretest and posttest, three in-depth interviews, and two written survey questionnaires within and at the end of the instructional period. The results of the sample essays showed that both the rhetorical modeling and the expressive method had significantly positive effects on the quality of expository writing. The interview and questionnaire data also indicated that both writing methods might complement each other, since they can facilitate the learning of different aspects in different stages of writing processes. The explicit teaching of expository organization via model essays could actively foster the development of rhetorical awareness and rhetorical schemata in revision, whereas the expressive writing method was more helpful in the development of writing fluency, creativity, and idea generation in the prewriting stage. Also, the expressive writing method was more interesting than rhetorical modeling, mainly due to the essence of the technique of freewritings and interesting activities. A more balanced combination of the two was thus presented in a sample syllabus for students to learn English writing in various aspects and to keep them interested in learning English writing.en
dc.language.isoenzh_TW
dc.relation.isbasedonReferences: Black, J. B. (1983). An exposition on understanding expository text. In Britton, B. K. & Black, J. B. (Eds.) Understanding Expository Text. Naval Research and the Army Research Institute. Blanton, L. L. (1993). Composition Practice: Book 4. (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning—A Teacher’s Guide to Statistics and Research Design. Cambridge University Press. Carrell, P. L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 441-469. Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: what student writers take from model texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(1), 88-125. Chia Hui-lung. (1998). Reading of expository prose as externally-guided thinking. The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching. Chiang Mei-chuan. (1998). The Effects of Model-based Instruction on Chinese Students’ English Writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. p.321-329. Taipei: Crane. Cobb, C. M. (1985). Process and Pattern: Controlled Composition Practice for ESL Students. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Connor, U. (1994). Text analysis. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL Research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 682-685. Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (p.126-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314-338. David, L. W., & John, R. H. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(1), 54-66. Eschholz, P. A. (1980). The prose models approach: Using products in the process. In T. R. Donovan, & B. W. McClelland (Ed.), Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition (p.21-36). National Council of Teachers of English. Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45-63. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. London: Longman. Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing. RELC Journal, 28(2), 35-55. Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: an exploratory study. Journal of second Language Writing, 3(3), 203-229. Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin. Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., and Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Kamimura, T. (2000). Integration of process and product orientations in EFL writing instruction. RELC Journal, 31(2), 1-28. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20. Kuo, Chih-Hua. (1995). Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: from lexical choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26 (1), 47-62. Latulippe, L. D. (1992). Writing as a Personal Product. Regents/Prentice Hall. Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage. Lindemann, E. (1995). A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. (3rd edition). Oxford University Press. Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1982), The interaction of reader strategies and the organization of text, text, 2(1-3), 155-192. Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534. Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. R. Donovan, & B. W. McClelland (Ed.), Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition (p.3-20). National Council of Teachers of English. Ostrom, J., & Cook, W. (1988). Better Paragraphs Plus. (6th ed.). Singapore: Harper & Row. Reid, J. M. (1984). Comments on Vivian Zamel’s “The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.” TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 149-157. Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents. Rose, M. (1983). Remedial writing courses: a critique and a proposal. College English, 45(2), 109-128. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291. Sengupta, S. (1999). Rhetorical consciousness raising in the L2 reading classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 291-319. Shieh Yen-lung. (1992). Reading English Exposition for Gist by Chinese EFL Learners: Comprehension, Recall and Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 617-648. Simpson, J. M. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293-309. Slater, W. H., Graves, M. F., Scott, S. B., & Redd-Boyd, T. M. (1988). Discourse structure and college freshmen’s recall and production of expository text. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 45-61. Smagorinsky, P. (1992). Models. In A. Purves, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the English studies and language arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Smalley, R. L., & Ruetten, M. K. (1995). Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar. (4th ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Spack R., & Sadow, C. (1983). Student-teacher working journals in ESL freshman composition. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 575-593. Stolarek, E. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The effect of modeling on developing a metacognitive stance toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(2), 154-174. Taylor, A. (1991). Shaping the Short Essay. Harper Collins. Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 134-146. Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 5-13. Tin, T. B. (2000). Writing, knowledge construction and idea framing. RELC Journal, 31(1), 96-115. Tomlinson, B. (1983). An approach to the teaching of continuous writing in ESL classes. ELT Journal, 37(1), 7-15. Trimble, L. (1985). English for Science and Technology: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge University Press. Tsai Ming-Jin. (1995). The Effect of Strategy Teaching on Text Structure Analysis for Children to Improve Reading Comprehension and Writing Skill. Unpublished master's thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC. Varghese, S. A., & Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 287- 306. Watson, C. B. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 5-14. White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process Writing. Longman. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: the process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187. 李振清,(1987),《大學聯考英文作文引發的英語教學新啟示》,英語教 學,12:2,頁29-36,台北市:文鶴出版有限公司發行。 李振清,(1988),《從閱讀與寫作的互動探討當前的英語教學方法》,英 語教學, 13:3,頁3-10,台北市:文鶴出版有限公司發行。zh_TW
dc.subject英文作文教學zh_TW
dc.subject說明文zh_TW
dc.subject說明文結構zh_TW
dc.subject結構分析zh_TW
dc.subject範文zh_TW
dc.subjectthe teaching of English writingen
dc.subjectExpository writingen
dc.subjectExpository organizationen
dc.subjectRhetorical analysisen
dc.subjectmodel essaysen
dc.subjectfreewritingen
dc.title台灣之大學生英文作文說明文範文結構分析成效之個案研究zh_TW
dc.title.alternativeA Case Study of the Effect of Rhetorical Analysis via Expository Models on Taiwanese Freshmen's English Compositionsen
Appears in Collections:博碩士論文 - FL Theses

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2009  The DSpace Foundation - Feedback