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：	劉淑惠 Shu-hui Liu
論文名稱：	英文摘要寫作教學對台灣高中生英文讀寫能力之影響 A Study on the Effects of English Summary Writing Instruction on Taiwanese Senior High School Students’ Reading and Writing Abilities
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：	2004
畢業學年度：	92
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	172
中文關鍵詞：	摘要寫作、寫作教學
英文關鍵詞：	Summary Writing, Writing Instruction
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：222 下載：46
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

本論文主旨在探討英文摘要寫作教學對台灣高中生英文讀寫能力之影響。特別針對學生在接受英文摘要教學前後，英文閱讀、寫作能力、摘要能力及其態度問卷的變化來分析。本研究以台北縣立安康高中四班高三學生共171人為研究對象，共分為實驗組 (89人) 及對照組 (82人)。在所有171名學生參加前測的摘要寫作測驗前，他們被安排先接受中文摘要測驗，以探討學生之中英文摘要能力之相關性。前測共包括三種測驗 (英文摘要、全民英檢中級程度之閱讀及寫作兩項能力測驗) 及一份態度問卷。隨後實驗組學生接受 Bean and Steenwyk (1984) 所提倡的Rule Governed Approach 逐一學習其中所列的摘要規則。三個月後實施後測，而後測項目及施行方式與前測相同。
本研究結果顯示 : (一)學生的中文摘要能力與英文摘要能力不相關。(二)在接受教學後實驗組學生的寫作成績與摘要成績呈現正相關。(三)實驗組在後測時不僅摘要表現比控制組好，其閱讀能力及寫作能力也較佳。(四)實驗組在後測時的閱讀，寫作及摘要表現都比其前測時的表現更好。(五)雖然在學測作文成績上兩組的差異無法達到顯著水準，但實驗組之分數是略高於控制組的。(六)在問卷的回答上，前測兩組無差異。後測時實驗組顯現出較正面的回答，而控制組大部份都以無意見為主要回答內容。
根據上述結果，本研究建議高中英文教師可在寫作教學課程中加入摘要寫作以訓練學生摘要之能力亦能增進學生閱讀及一般寫作之表現。惟本研究以研究者所教之學生為對象，局限於學生程度及施行時間，因此研究結果雖有參考價值，若欲據以推論其在不同學校與不同程度學生之教學應用，尚需進一步探究。

This thesis explores the effectiveness of English summary writing instruction on the reading and writing abilities of EFL senior high school students in Taiwan. The present research attempts to offer comparison and analysis of the summary writing tasks, GEPT reading tasks, GEPT writing tasks, and the responses to the questionnaire in the pretest and posttest. One hundred and seventy-one students in the third year of An Kang Senior High School participated in this study, and were divided into the Experimental Group and the Control Group. Before the pretest, all the participants received a Chinese summary test. The pretest of the study mainly consisted of three tests (English summary task, Intermediate Level Tests on reading and writing abilities from GEPT) along with a questionnaire. Afterward, the Experimental Group received the instruction of summative skills based on the Rule Governed Approach as proposed by Bean and Steenwyk (1984). Three months later, both groups took the posttest.
Several findings are revealed from the analysis of the results. First, it is found that the subjects’ Chinese summative abilities had no significant impact on their English summative abilities. Second, after the treatment, it is evident that the experimental subjects who got better scores in the GEPT writing tasks showed better performances in the summary writing tasks. Third, the results show that the experimental subjects did better than the control group not only in the reading comprehension abilities but also in their writing abilities, and more importantly, in their summative abilities as well. Fourth, it is observed that the experimental group showed noteworthy improvement in the posttest GEPT reading comprehension task. Besides, they also obtained better scores in the posttest GEPT writing task and the posttest summary writing task. Fifth, the findings indicate that the experimental group did obtain better scores in the JCEE compositions, though the significance did not achieve the acceptable significance level of 0.05. Last, in the pretest questionnaire, both groups showed no obvious differences in their responses. In the posttest questionnaire, the experimental group demonstrated more positive attitudes toward the summary writing process while the control group showed no such preference.
Based on the findings, the researcher suggests that EFL senior high school teachers in Taiwan consider the possibility of incorporating the instruction of this approach in the writing class. The summary writing instruction administered in this study can be a viable approach to not only help polish students’ summative abilities but also help improve their reading and writing abilities. It should be noted, however, that the study was executed in only one senior high school and the students’ proficiency and the duration of treatment time are limited; therefore, it is not appropriate to over-generalize, and the results of the study should not be deemed applicable to all senior high school students here in Taiwan.

CHINESE ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS….……………………………………………………iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………v
LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………ix
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………xi

CHAPTERS
I.    INTRODUCTION
1    Background of the Study…………………………………1
2    Development of the GEWPT ………………………………4
3    Significance of Summary Writing Instruction………7
4    Purpose of the Study ……………………………………9
5    Research Questions………………………………………10
6    Summary and Organization of the Study ……………11

II.    LITERATURE REVIEW
1    The Major Features of a Summary ……………………12
2    Classification of Summaries …………………………13
3    The Necessity of Summary Writing Instruction……15
4    The Effects of Summary Writing Instruction………16
5    The Procedure of Summary Writing Instruction……18
6    Two Major Approaches to Summary Writing
         Instruction ………………………………………………20
7    Two Major Frameworks for Assessing a Summary……22
8    Summary ……………………………………………………23

III.    METHODOLOGY
1    Subjects……………………………………………………26
2    Materials …………………………………………………28
3    Procedures…………………………………………………29
4    Pretest ……………………………………………………30
5    Posttest……………………………………………………32
6    Instruments ………………………………………………32
6.1    Statistical Analysis……………………………………33
6.2    Questionnaire ……………………………………………33
6.3    Performance Data…………………………………………36
7    Graders ……………………………………………………37
8    Grading Criteria…………………………………………38
8.1    Criteria for Assessing the GEPT Writing Samples 38
8.2    Criteria for Assessing Both English and Chinese
         Summary Writing Samples ………………………………39
8.3    Scoring of GEPT Reading Comprehension Tests ……40
8.4    Key Points of the Pretest Summary Writing ………41
8.5    Key Points of the Posttest Summary Writing………41
9    Summary ……………………………………………………42

IV.    RESEARCH DESIGN
1    Syllabus Design …………………………………………44
2    Instruction Procedures and Summary Samples of
         the Experimental Group…………………………………45
2.1    Brainstorming ……………………………………………46
2.2    Getting the Main Idea …………………………………46
2.3    Paraphrasing………………………………………………51
2.4    Selection of the Topic Sentences……………………53
2.5    Invention of the Topic Sentences……………………58
2.6    Super-ordination of Nouns ……………………………62
2.7    Super-ordination of Action……………………………65
2.8    Deletion of Unimportant or Trivial Sentences……68
2.9    Deletion of Important but Repeated Sentences……71
3    Summary ……………………………………………………74

V.    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1    Results ……………………………………………………76
1.1    Comparison of the Reliability of the Graders
         and the Questionnaire …………………………………77
1.2    Comparison of the Chinese and English Summary
         Writing Scores……………………………………………78
1.3    Comparison of the Pretest and Posttest Scores …80
1.4    Comparison of the JCEE Composition Scores ………87
1.5    Comparison of the Responses of the Pretest
         and Posttest Questionnaires …………………………90
2    Discussion…………………………………………………96
2.1    Discussion of the Reliability of the Graders
         and the Questionnaire …………………………………97
2.2    Discussion of the Chinese and English Summary
         Writing Scores……………………………………………98
2.3    Discussion of the Pretest and Posttest Scores …99
2.4    Discussion of the JCEE Composition Scores………103
2.5    Discussion of the Responses of the Pretest
         and Posttest Questionnaires…………………………104
3    Summary……………………………………………………107

VI.    CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
1    Major Findings …………………………………………109
2    Pedagogical Implications ……………………………112
3    Limitations of the Study ……………………………114
4    Suggestions for Further Studies……………………115

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………118
                                

Adrapoff, N. (1970). Writing through understanding. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Amuchie, P. M. (1983). Teaching Summarization Skills to Bilingual Elementary School Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243332)
Barnet, S., Berman, M., & Burto, W. (Eds.) (1988). Literature for Composition Essays Fiction Poetry & Drama (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The Effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 9(4), 297-306.
Behan, L. & DeWitt, S. L. (2003). Summary Writing. [On-line]. Available: http://summary%20google.htm [2003/9/16]
Bermudez, A. B., & Prater, D. L. (1988). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Writing on the Comprehension and Retention of Content Reading in Bilingual Students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 295481)
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.
Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching writing skills. London; New York: Longman.
Casazza, M. E. (1993). Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary writing in a college reading class. Journal of Reading, 37(3), 202-208.
Chang, W. (2000). The English Writing Ability Test: The test items and the analysis of the first EWAT in 2000. Newsletter for teaching the Humanities and social sciences, 11(5), 17-34.
Chang, W. et al. (1999). The final report on the possibility of the independent sdministration of English writing ability (I). Taipei: CEEC.
Chang, W. et al. (2000). The final report on the possibility of the independent administration of English writing ability (II). Taipei: CEEC.
Chang, W. et al. (2000). The final report on the possibility of the independent administration of English writing ability (III). Taipei: CEEC.
Chern, C., & Liao, M. (2001). Far East English extensive reading series. 6 vols. Taipei: Far East Book Co., Ltd.
Daniels, J. P. (1989). Reading and Writing to Learn: The Effect of a Literature Program and Summary Writing Strategies on Achievement in and Attitude toward Social Studies Content among Fourth Grade Students. Ann Arbor, Mi.; University Microfilms International, 1989. (University Microfilms No. 9000793)
Day, J. D. (1986). Teaching summarization skills: Influences of student ability level and strategy difficulty. Cognition and Instruction, 3(3), 193-210.
Davis, M., & Hult, R.E. (1997). Effects of writing summary as a generative learning activity during note-taking. Teaching of Psychology, 24(1), 47-49.
DeNight, S. (1992). Writing to Learn Activities in Writing across the Curriculum classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360646)
Duke, N. K., & Pearson P. D. (1985). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-115.
Enos, C. (1988). The Effects of Summary Writing on Junior High Remedial Readers.　Ann Arbor, Mi.; University Microfilms International, 1988. (Uuniversity Microfilms No.1333623)
Fitzgerald, K. K., & McBeth, S. J. (1991). The student writer. New York, NY: Harper, Collins.
Friend, R. (2001). Teaching Summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 320-329.
Friend, R. (2002). Summing it up: Teaching summary writing to enhance science learning. The Science Teacher, 40-43.
Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarizations costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 275-279.
Greaney, G. L. (1997). Less is more: Summary writing and sentence structure in the advanced ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(9), September, 1997.
Hill, M. (1991). Writing summaries promotes thinking and learning across the curriculum-but why are they so difficult to write? Journal of Reading, 34(7), 536-539.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (Ed.) (1983). Annual review of Applied Linguistics, 1982. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kern, D., Andre, W., Schilke, R., Barton, J., & MeGuire, M. C. (2003). Less is more: Preparing students for state writing assessments. The Reading Teacher, 56(8), 816-826.
Lardner, T. & Lundberg, T. (2001). Exchanges reading and writing about consumer culture. Addison Wesley Longman.
Li, W. (2003). You can write! Taipei: San Min Book Co., Ltd.
Lin, M. (2002). Far East English composition. Taipei: Far East Book Co., Ltd.
Lin, S. et al. (2001). The final report on the possibility of the independent administration of English writing ability (IV). Taipei: CEEC.
LTTC. (2001). Intermediate Level Test of General English Proficiency Test (I). Taipei.
LTTC. (2002). Intermediate Level Test of General English Proficiency Test (II). Taipei.
Radmacher, S. A. & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 113-115.
Seale, B. (1978). Writing effectively: A step by step composition course. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Sieben, J. K., & Anthony, L. S. (1982). Basic skills for writing. Scott, Foresman and Company.
Smith, C. B., & Dahl, K. L. (1984). Teaching reading and writing together the classroom connection. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sternglass, M. (1983). Sequencing Writing Tasks on the Basis of Their Cognitive Demands. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 2406214)
Strode, S. L. (1989). Re-evaluation of the Effects of Annotation Training on Summary Writing and Comprehension of College Students. Ann Arbor, Mi.; Uinversity Microfilms Intenational, 1990. (University Microfilms No. 9008123)
Su, F. H. (2003). The infrastructure of English education. English Teaching & Learning, 28(2), 1-17.
Swanson, P. N., & De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies to students with learning and reading disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(4), 209-218.
Tsai, B. R. (1995). Design Considerations for Embedding Summary Writing Activities in CBI: Analysis of the Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383344)
Tsao, F. F. (2004). How to achieve a breakthrough in English Learning in an EFL context like Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 28(3), 1-14.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press, 52-55.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文