簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 莊心怡
Hsin-yi Chuang
論文名稱： 台灣高中生英文記敘文寫作過程之個案研究
A case study of English narrative writing process of Taiwanese senior high students
指導教授： 丁仁
Ting, Jen
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2004
畢業學年度： 93
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 118
中文關鍵詞： 寫作過程 、記敘文 、台灣高中生
英文關鍵詞： writing process, narrative, Taiwanese senior high students
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：457  下載：35 
分享至:
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

    • 本研究主要探討不同程度高中生之記敘文寫作過程。研究對象為九位台灣高一學生。其中三位寫作能力較高、三位為中等程度、三位寫作能力低。這些學生在寫兩篇記敘文時須同時進行有聲思考。之後他們都接受訪談，訪談內容為他們自己所察覺到的中英文寫作過程。最後這些學生的國文老師接受訪談，訪談內容為這些學生中文寫作之表現。
    本研究發現，就寫作過程而言，這些不同程度之學生有著許多類似之處，包括他們的寫作過程都是循環的，他們都只擬定粗略的計劃、進展內容時會先寫下他們所想到的，之後再作修正，以及他們修改的效果非常有限。其不同之處在於他們下筆前擬定計畫所花的時間，以及當他們不會表達時所使用的策略。但是這些差異與他們的程度無關。此外，本研究也找出一些有效及無效的寫作策略。對這些學生而言，影響他們寫作表現的是他們的英語語言能力，而非他們的寫作過程。
    本研究的另一項發現為這些學生在寫英文作文時，會移轉部份的母語寫作知識及寫作過程。不過，不只母語的寫作能力，還有英語之能力及英語寫作策略之教導，在這些學生的英文寫作表現上都很重要。
    當然，為了更了解如何教導台灣學生英文寫作，仍然需要做更多相關的研究。

    This study aims to investigate the narrative writing process among senior high students at different writing proficiency levels. The subjects of the study were nine first-year students in one senior high school in Taiwan, three at a higher writing proficiency level, three at the middle level and three at the lowest level. These students were asked to practice think aloud while writing two narrative essays. Then they all received a retrospective interview about the L1 and the L2 writing process perceived by themselves. Finally, these subjects’ Chinese teacher received an interview about these students’ performance in the L1 writing.
    In this study, it is found that in terms of the composing process, there exist lots of similarities among these subjects across different proficiency levels, including the recursive writing process, the rough planning, the use of satisficing strategy in drafting, and limited revising/editing. The difference is found in the time spent on the pretask planning and the strategies the subjects adopt when they have difficulty expressing certain ideas. However, such difference is not found related to their writing proficiency levels. Moreover, some effective and ineffective strategies in the composing process are found. To these subjects, it is not the composing process but their L2 linguistic proficiency that affects their performance.
    Another finding of this study is that these subjects transfer some of their L1 writing knowledge and writing process into the L2 writing. Yet, not only the L1 writing ability, but also the L2 proficiency and the instruction of the L2 writing strategies matter in these subjects’ L2 writing.
    Still, more research needs to be done. Then English educators may know better how to teach Taiwanese students English writing.

    ABSTRACT (Chinese) i ABSTRACT (English) iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background and motivation 1 1.1.1 The importance of English writing 1 1.1.2 The difficulty of English writing 2 1.1.3 The trend of the teaching and studies of English writing 3 1.1.4 The adoption of think aloud 4 1.1.5 The adoption of the interview 5 1.1.6 Focus on narrative writing 5 1.1.7 Focus on Taiwanese senior high students 6 1.2 Purpose of the study 6 1.3 Research questions 7 1.4 Significance of the study 8 1.5 Overview of the study 8 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 The process of writing 10 2.1.1 The nature of the writing process 10 2.1.2 The stages of writing process 11 2.1.3 Non-linear composing way 12 2.1.4 The planning process 13 2.1.5 The drafting process 14 2.1.5.1 Strategies in drafting 14 2.1.5.2 The L2 drafting process 15 2.1.6 The revising/editing process 16 2.1.7 The writing process of skilled and unskilled writers 17 2.1.7.1 Similarity between native and ESL writers 17 2.1.7.2 The common features of skilled writers 18 2.1.7.3 The common features of unskilled writers 19 2.2 Factors contributing to the L2 writing performance 20 2.2.1 Knowledge of the writing conventions 21 2.2.2 Logical thinking 21 2.2.3 Knowledge of the target language 21 2.3 The role of the L1 in the L2 writing 22 2.3.1 The transfer of the L1 writing process 22 2.3.2 The transfer of the L1 writing rhetoric convention 23 2.3.3 The transfer of the L1 syntax 23 2.3.4 The transfer of the L1 semantics 24 2.3.5 Reasons for the transfer of syntax and semantics 24 2.4 Literature concerning narratives 25 2.5 The think-aloud technique 25 2.5.1 The use of the think aloud in reading research 26 2.5.2 The use of the think aloud in writing research 26 2.5.3 Advantages of think aloud 28 2.5.4 Criticism of think aloud 28 2.5.5 Suggestions for the use of think aloud 29 2.6 Retrospection 30 2.7 Summary of this chapter 31 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 32 3.1 Subjects 32 3.2 Procedures of this study 34 3.2.1 Preparation tasks 34 3.2.2 The tasks 35 3.2.3 The procedures of practicing think aloud 35 3.2.4 The retrospective interview 36 3.2.5 The interview with the Chinese teacher 36 3.3 Data analysis 36 3.3.1 The narrative articles 37 3.3.2 The think-aloud protocols 37 3.3.2.1 The Think-Aloud Protocol Coding Scheme 38 3.3.3 The retrospective interview 42 3.3.4 The interview with the Chinese teacher 42 3.4 Summary of this chapter 42 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43 4.1 The results 43 4.1.1 The comparison of the subject’s scores in the pilot study and those of the two narrative essays in this study 43 4.1.2 The results about the writing process gained from the think-aloud protocols 44 4.1.2.1 The recursive composing process 44 4.1.2.2 The planning process 46 4.1.2.3 The drafting process 47 4.1.2.4 The revising and editing process 54 4.1.3 Results from text analysis 57 4.1.3.1 Text length across the groups 58 4.1.3.2 Subjects’ conventional knowledge across the groups 58 4.1.3.3 Subjects’ linguistic proficiency across the groups 60 4.1.4 Results from the interview 63 4.1.4.1 Results from the interview with the subjects about the L2 writing 63 4.1.4.2 The results from the interview with students about their L1 writing 65 4.1.4.3 The interview with the subjects’ Chinese teacher 66 4.2 Discussion of the results 67 4.2.1 The comparison of the subjects’ scores in the pilot study and those of the two narrative essays in this study 67 4.2.2 The writing process of the subjects 68 4.2.2.1 The recursive composing process 69 4.2.2.2 Subjects’ planning process 69 4.2.2.3 Subjects’ drafting process 71 4.2.2.4 Subjects’ revising and editing process 74 4.2.2.5 The comparison of the subjects in the study with the skilled and unskilled writers in other researchers’ study 75 4.2.3 Effective and ineffective strategies 76 4.2.3.1 Effective strategies 77 4.2.3.2 Ineffective strategies 78 4.2.4 Text analysis 79 4.2.4.1 The relationship between the length of the articles and the scores 79 4.2.4.2 Conventional knowledge analysis 80 4.2.4.3 Discussion about subjects’ linguistic proficiency 81 4.2.4.4 Coherence analysis 83 4.2.5 The role of the L1 in the L2 writing 84 4.2.5.1 The comparison of the subjects’ performance in the L1 and the L2 writing 84 4.2.5.2 The transfer of the L1 writing process 86 4.2.5.3 The transfer of the L1 rhetorical convention, syntax, and semantics 89 4.3 Summary of this chapter 91 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 92 5.1 Summary of findings 92 5.1.1 Subjects’ performance 92 5.1.2 Findings concerning the writing process 93 5.1.3 Findings gained after the text analysis 94 5.1.4 The role of the L1 in the L2 writing 95 5.2 Pedagogical implications 95 5.3 Limitations of the study 97 5.4 Suggestions for future research 98 REFERENCES 100 Appendix A Research description 107 Appendix B Notes of the use of think-aloud 108 Appendix C Sample of the think-aloud transcription 109 Appendix D Interview questions with subjects 111 Appendix E Interview questions with the Chinese teacher 113 Appendix F Subjects’ articles 114 List of Tables Table 1 The think-aloud protocol coding scheme 38 Table 2 The comparison of the scores in the pilot study and in this study 44 Table 3 Time spent at planning stage by each student 47 Table 4 The average number of words in an utterance 48 Table 5 The comparison of the act of reading the text and that leads to editing and revising 55 Table 6 The percentage of the pauses aiming at checking or revising/editing 55 Table 7 Number of editing and revising 56 Table 8 The number of errors being corrected and not revised/edited 57 Table 9 The comparison of the scores in this study and the average number of words in their texts 58 Table 10 The inclusion of the topic sentence and an ending sentence in the text 59 Table 11 The exact number of transitional errors 59 Table 12 The frequency of incoherent sentences 60 Table 13 The number of simple, compound and complex sentences used in subjects’ articles 61 Table 14 The number of conjunctive errors 62 Table 15 Number of grammatical errors 62 Table 16 The number of semantic errors 63 Table 17 Subjects’ proficiency level and features in their L1 writing 67

    Afflerbach, P. & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology: on the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307-322.
    Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: a protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal, 41 (4), 257-267.
    Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2 (2), 131-156.
    Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
    Block, E. (1998). Using think-alouds to study L2 reading. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual TESOL Convention: Seattle, WA.
    Bloom, L.Z. (1980). Teaching anxious writers: implications and applications of research. Composition and Teaching, 2, 47-60.
    Brand, A.G. (1989). The psychology of writing: the affective experience. New York: Greenwood Press.
    Burgos, M. (1993). The metacognitive processes on nonnative English-speaking high school students during the composing process. Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. [Microfilm] Ann Arbor, MI.: UMI.
    Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching writing skills. London, New York: Longman.
    Cavanaugh, J.C. & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: a critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11-28.
    Cavender, N. & Weiss, L. (1987). Thinking/writing. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
    Chang, C.H. (1998). Chinese students’ writing strategies and error production. Research papers in linguistics and literature. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University, 160-172.
    Chen, D.W. (1998). Understanding the two sources of EFL writing performance as the means to improve EFL writing instruction. Proceedings of the
    seventh international symposium on English teaching. Taipei: Crane, 197-207.
    Chen, S.H. (2001). Cohesion in children’s L2 narratives and teaching of discourse skills. Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching. Taipei: Crane, 300-309.
    Cheng, C.K. (1999). The use of think-aloud protocols in investigation of second language reading. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language literature, (5), 3-29.
    Chi, F.M. (1998). A descriptive study of reading strategies used by Taiwanese EFL university more and less proficient readers. Master’s thesis, Providence University, Taichung.
    Chin, Y.M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL writing: A case study. Master’s thesis. Hsin-chu: National Tsing Hua University.
    Ching, P.J. (1992). How to improve English composition teaching in Taiwan’s high schools: A study of error analysis and learning strategies. Master’s thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
    Cobb, C.M. (1985). Process and pattern: controlled composition practice for ESL students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
    Cohen, A.D. (1987). Studying learner strategies: how we get the information. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 31-40). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Cohen, A.D. & Hosenfeld, C. (1981). Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research. Language Learning, 31 (2), 285-313.
    Cooper, M., & Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about protocols. College Composition and Communication, 34 (3), 284-293.
    Cumming, A.H. (Ed.). (1994). Bilingual performance in reading and writing. Ann Arbor: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Day, S., McMahan, E., & Funk, R. (1989) Reading and the writing process. New York : Macmillan.
    Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: the relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 211-228.
    Eggers, P. (1994). Process and practice: a guide for developing writers (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College.
    Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). Effects of planning on L2 narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (1), 58-84.
    Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
    Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 400-414.
    Feng, H.P. (2001). Writing an academic paper in English: an exploratory study of six Taiwanese graduate students. Unpublished Dissertation. New York: Columbia University.
    Flower, L. (1993). Problem-solving strategies for writing (4th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
    Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
    Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Translated by Lewin, J.E. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.
    Hayes, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamar, & S.A. Salmsley (Eds.), Research on writing (pp. 206-220). New York: Longman, Inc.
    Hsieh, M.C. (2003). A case study of English reading comprehension strategies used by junior high students. Master’s thesis. Chiayi: National Chiayi University.
    Hsu, L.R. (2003). A study of relationships between feeling of knowing about English reading strategy use and reading g comprehension of Taiwanese college students. Master’s thesis, Changhua: National Changhua University of Education.
    Hsu, M.L. (2002). The effect of pair think-aloud procedures on Taiwanese senior high school students’ EFL reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness. Master’s thesis. Taipei: Naitonal Taiwan Normal University.
    Hughey, J.B., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., & Jacobs, H.L. (1983). Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher, Inc.
    Joe, S.G. & You, Y.L. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English-majored university student writers. Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching. Taipei: Crane, 106-119.
    Jones, C.S. (1982). Composing in a second language: a process study. Paper presented at the 16th Annual TESOL Convention, Honolulu, HI, May, 1982.
    Jones, C.S. & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelling the production processes (pp. 340-357). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183-215.
    Kuo, J.L. (2003). The effects of using first language in Taiwanese senior high school students’ second language writing. Master’s thesis, Tainan: Chang Jung Christian University.
    Kuo, W.H. (2000). A case study of L1-L2 transfer of rhetorical patterns of three university students in Taiwan. Master’s thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
    Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    Lannon, J.M. (1989). The writing process (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
    Lee, C.Y. (1996). An analysis of errors in English compositions written by selected Military Carets: Its implications for teaching EFL writing. Master’s thesis. Taipei: Fu Hsing Kang College.
    Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: a guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
    Lin, M.S. (2000). Far East English composition for senior high school. Taipei: Far East Book Co., Ltd.
    Mohan, E.A. & Lo, W.A.Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 515-534.
    Nazer, L. (1996). The influence of the first language on second-language writing. Modern English Teacher, 5 (3), 50-51.
    Newell, A., & Simon, H.J. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every language teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
    Perl, S. (1980). A look at basic writers in the process of composing. In L.N. Kasden & D.R. Hoeber (Eds.), Basic writing ( pp. 13-32). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
    Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13 (1), 5-22.
    Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 273-295.
    Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
    Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: a study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-467.
    Rizzardi, M.C. (1998). Teaching writing skills: from aims to assessment. Modern English Teacher, 7 (1/2), 33-41.
    Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: a cognitive analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31 (4), 389-401.
    Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), 41-51.
    Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977). Errors and expectations. Paper presented at the 27th Annual TESOL Convention. Vancouver, BC, 1977.
    Someren, M.W.V., Barnard, Y.F., & Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31 (4), 378-388.
    Su, H.C. (1996). A protocol analysis of the process of Chinese EFL college students’ writing in English. Master’s thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
    Sun, Y.S. (2003). A study of the effects of two text structures on Taiwanese EFL junior high school students strategy use. Master’s thesis. Tainan: National Cheng Kung University.
    Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 285-295.
    Thorson, H. (2000). Using the computer to compare foreign and native language writing processes: a statistical and case study approach. Modern Language Journal, 84 (2), 155-167.
    Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 to L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 271-294.
    Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: lowering or keeping up the standards. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, 178-194.
    Wong, I.F.H., & Choo, L.S. (1982). Language transfer in the use of English in Malaysia: structure and meaning. In F. Eppert (Ed.), Transfer and translation in language learning and teaching. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
    You, Y.L. (1999). The contributing factors to the problem of lack of texture in EFL students’ writing. The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane, 343-361.
    You, Y.L. (2000). Language transfer and logical thinking in EFL writing. The Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane, 108-121.
    You, Y.L. & Joe, S.G. (1999). The role of metacognitive theory in L2 writing: Speculations and suggestions. The proceedings of the eighth international symposium on English teaching. Taipei: Crane, 181-192.
    Yu, H.Y. (1997). A study on the use of English tense-aspect forms in narrative compositions by Taiwan college students and its pedagogical implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
    Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.
    Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
    Zamel, V. (1984). In search of the key: research and practice in composition. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, and B.P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83: the question of control. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

    QR CODE