簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 謝智傑
Bryant Zhi-Jie Hsieh
論文名稱： 台灣高中英文課本寫作教材之評析
An Analysis of Writing Materials in Senior High School English Textbooks in Taiwan
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： 2007
畢業學年度： 96
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 123
中文關鍵詞： 課本教材分析/評量 、第二語言寫作 、分析架構 、教師晤談
英文關鍵詞： Textbook analysis/evaluation, L2 writing, Coding scheme, Teacher interviews
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：180  下載：37 
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

    • 摘要
    本研究之主要目的為分析遠東、三民、與龍騰三個不同版本高中英文課本內的寫作教材。研究者修訂 Chan (2001) 的寫作教材分類架構來分析資料，藉以呈現此三個版本內，寫作教材的教學重點及寫作練習之主要類型。此外，本研究訪談六位高中英語教師，以了解高中教師之寫作教學信念，使用課本寫作教材的狀況，以及對此類教材之評量。
    課本分析結果指出，研究調查的三個版本寫作教材，含有顯著不同的寫作教學重點。遠東版本之寫作教學重點集中於段落的結構以及文類功能 (genres)；三民版本注重文法及段落結構，並對寫作策略有些許著墨；龍騰版本的主要重點也在文法與段落結構，但次要重點置於文類功能，而非寫作策略。以上研究結果顯示，段落結構為此三版本共同強調之重點。文法及文類 (genres) 在此三個版本當中，各有不同程度的處理。而寫作策略則是最被忽略的教學面向。總言之，分析寫作教材的教學性質，大致上為成果取向 (product-based)，而寫作的過程 (composing processes) 則傾向被邊緣化。
    在寫作練習題方面，此三個版本教材呈現有許多相似之處。三個版本都包含能提升段落結構概念之練習題，同時也都大量使用段落短文，作為學生寫作時之範本。值得一提的是，三民與龍騰版本，為了強化學生之文法結構，設計了許多單句的練習，而遠東版本則幾乎完全沒有安排此類練習。
    教師訪談結果也顯示幾項重要發現。首先，受訪教師在英文課教導寫作，主要目的為準備升學考試，其次則為協助學生訓練自我表達，以及統整英語課學習過之教材內容。而受訪教師亦表示寫作教學的目的，主要為教導學生段落組織以及文法結構。因此他們的教學重點為段落觀念、轉折詞的使用、以及文法句型。此外，在六個受訪教師之中，有五位使用課本中的寫作教材，主要是選擇性地使用簡短、而相關性夠高的教材。其中一位教師則完全不使用課本內的寫作教材，原因為這些教材與月考缺乏相關性，教材所在之位置，以及授課時間緊迫等限制。至於教師對這些寫作教材的評鑑，寫作結構上的處理在三版之中獲得較一致的正面評價。但在文法、文體、寫作策略、以及寫作練習題方面，受訪教師們則有正反不一的意見表達。整體來說，此三版寫作教材以段落結構中心為主，大致上符合教師的教學信念。
    此研究旨在增進對台灣高中英文課本內寫作教材之認識。研究結果希望協助教科書編撰者在未來補強此三版寫作教材不足之處，也期盼能幫助英語教師了解、並有效地利用課本內之寫作教材，並在需要時，適切地使用補充教材。最後，研究者也根據研究結果，提出數項相關的建議。

    ABSTRACT
    The main goal of the current study is to analyze the writing sections in three English textbook series frequently used in senior high schools—i.e. the FE, SM and LT series. For the analysis of the instructional focuses and task features of the writing sections in the three series, a coding scheme from Chan (2001) was adapted. A secondary goal of the study is to investigate the beliefs of English teachers about writing instruction, and their use and assessment of the writing sections. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six senior high school English teachers.
    Results of the textbook content analysis revealed that the three series featured significantly different instructional focuses. The FE series focused almost exclusively on rhetorical organization and genres. The SM series was concerned mainly with grammar and rhetorical organization, with some attention given to writing strategies. In the LT series, grammar and rhetorical organization were also the focus of instruction; yet it differed from the SM series in its additional attention to genres rather than strategies. These findings indicated that the three series all gave great salience to rhetorical organization. Grammar and genres, on the other hand, received differential degrees of treatment. The least amount of attention, as has been shown, was devoted to strategy training. These results suggest that the three series adopted a primarily product-oriented approach to writing instruction. Writing processes, for the most part, were marginalized.
    Regarding task features, the three series shared several major similarities. To start with, all three series included recognition exercises to raise students’ awareness about basic paragraph structure. Furthermore, they drew extensively on the use of reading texts as writing samples for paragraph writing tasks. Particularly worth noting was the finding that the SM and LT series, in order to reinforce linguistic structures, devoted a portion of their tasks to sentence writing practice. In the FE series, sentence writing tasks were virtually non-existent.
    The analysis of the semi-structured interviews yielded a number of important findings. First, the teachers were found to teach writing mainly for the sake of exams, to facilitate self-expression, and to help students integrate learned materials. Their underlying beliefs about writing instruction were predominantly rhetorical and linguistic, focusing on paragraph structure, transition, and linguistic patterns. Second, in terms of the use of their textbook writing sections, the majority of the teachers reported that they did use them, but on a selective basis. Their criteria for selection were found to be conciseness and relevance. One teacher, being the only exception, ignored these writing sections entirely mainly due to their irrelevance to monthly tests, their lesson final positions, and time constraints. As for supplementary materials, picture writing materials and published writing textbooks were found most favorable among the teachers. Third, with regard to the evaluation of these textbook writing sections, the treatment of rhetorical organization was most positively assessed across the three series. Responses to grammar, writing strategies, genres, and tasks, on the other hand, all turned out to be somewhat mixed. Overall, the teachers responded most positively to the rhetorical focus of the three series, indicating that their beliefs were generally consistent with results of the textbook content analysis.
    The findings of the present study will advance our understanding of the writing sections in three major high school textbook series. They will assist textbook compilers to compensate for the limitations of these teaching materials in future materials development. These findings can also aid high school teachers in making more informed decisions about how to use these textbook writing materials flexibly and draw on support materials whenever necessary. Finally, based on the findings of the current study, a number of pedagogical and practical implications are provided.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT (CHINESE) i ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi TABLE OF CONTENTS viii LIST OF TABLES xii LIST OF FIGURES xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Background and Motivation 1 Research Questions 3 Definitions of Key Terms 4 Writing Sections 4 Instructional Units 4 Task Units 5 Genres and Text Types 5 Real-World Tasks and Pedagogical Tasks 5 Significance of the Study 6 Organization of the Thesis 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 8 Historical Sketch of L2 Composition Approaches 8 Controlled Composition 8 Current-Traditional Rhetoric 9 The Process Approach 11 English for Academic Purposes 13 Grammar 14 Controversy over Grammar Instruction 15 Support for the Role of Grammar in Writing Instruction 15 Arguments Against the Place of Grammar in Writing 17 Possible Reconciliation 18 Lexical Proficiency and Text Quality 19 Rhetorical Organization 20 Strategy-Based Instruction 21 Genre 23 Definition of the Term 23 Genre-Oriented Instruction 24 Writing Tasks 27 Real-World Tasks and Pedagogical Tasks 27 Reading-Writing Connection 27 Textbook Evaluation 29 Textbook Evaluation Research Conducted Abroad 30 Research on Textbook Evaluation in Taiwan 32 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD 35 Research Design 35 Selection of Textbooks for Analysis 35 Instrument 36 Grammar and Lexis 38 Rhetorical Organization 39 Composing Strategies 39 Genres 39 Tasks 40 Data Collection Procedures 41 Collection of Textbook Writing Materials 41 Collection of Teacher Interview Data 41 Data Sources and Data Analysis Procedures 41 Analysis of Textbook Writing Materials 42 Coding Procedures 42 Inter-Coder Reliability 44 Procedures for Analyzing the Writing Sections in the Three Series 45 Analysis of Instructional Units 45 Analysis of Task Units 45 Analysis of Interview Data 45 Philosophy 46 Practice 46 Evaluation 46 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 47 Textbook Writing Instructional Materials 47 Coverage of Writing Sections 47 General Organization and Focuses of the Three Series 48 The FE Series 48 The SM Series 49 The LT Series 50 Overall Distributions of the Instructional and Task Variables 52 Instructional Variables 52 Task Variable 55 Specific Instructional and Task Subcategories 56 Grammar and Lexis 56 Rhetorical Organization 59 Composing Strategies 62 Genres 63 Tasks 65 Word-Level Tasks 65 Sentence-Level Tasks 66 Paragraph-Level Tasks 67 Non-Writing Tasks 69 Interview Results 71 Philosophy 72 Rationale for Writing Instruction 72 Focuses of Writing Instruction 74 Favored Instructional Materials 76 Factors Shaping the Teachers’ Beliefs 77 Practice 79 General Composition Instruction 79 Textbook Material Use 79 Supplementary Materials 81 Evaluation 82 Presentation of the Five Variables 82 The FE Series 82 The SM Series 83 The LT Series 85 Suggestions 86 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 89 Discussion of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series 89 Instructional Focuses and Underlying Composition Pedagogies 89 Textbook Writers’ Underlying Beliefs About Writing Instruction 90 Cross-Examination of Instructional Focuses 92 Dominance of the Rhetorical Approach 92 General Neglect of Strategy Training 94 Controversy Surrounding Grammar Instruction 96 Differential Impacts of the Genre Approach 98 Discussion of the Task Variable in the Three Series 100 Discussion of Interview Results 103 Teacher Philosophy 103 For Exams, Expression, Reinforcement, and Communication 103 Focuses on Rhetorical Forms, Grammar, Reading, and Practice 105 The Influences of Training, Conferences, Exams, and Materials 106 Practice 107 Evaluation 109 The FE Series 109 The SM Series 110 The LT Series 113 Discussion of the Textbook Writers, the Teachers, and the Researcher 115 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS 117 Summary of Major Findings 117 Textbook Analysis 117 Teacher Interviews 118 Implications 120 Limitations of the Study 122 Directions for Further Research 123 REFERENCES 124 Appendix A: Writing Textbook Coding Scheme 132 Appendix B: Teacher Interview Questions 143 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Proportions of Writing Materials in the Three Textbook Series 47 Table 2. Organization and Focuses of Writing Sections in the FE Series 48 Table 3. Organization and Focuses of Writing Sections in the SM Series 49 Table 4. Organization and Focuses of Writing Sections in the LT Series 51 Table 5. Distributions of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series 53 Table 6. Distributions of the Task Types in the Three Series 55 Table 7. Grammar and Lexis in the Three Series 57 Table 8. Rhetorical Organization in the Three Series 59 Table 9. Composing Strategies in the Three Series 62 Table 10. Genres in the Three Series 63 Table 11. Top Three Task Subcategories in the Three Series 65 Table 12. Word-Level Tasks in the Three Series 66 Table 13. Sentence-Level Tasks in the Three Series 66 Table 14. Paragraph-Level Tasks in the Three Series 68 Table 15. Non-Writing Tasks in the Three Series 70 Table 16. Background Information on the Six Teacher Interviewees 71 Table 17. Rationale for Writing Instruction 72 Table 18. Focuses of Writing Instruction 74 Table 19. Favored Writing Materials 76 Table 20. Factors Shaping the Teachers’ Beliefs 77 Table 21. Criteria for Material Use 80 Table 22. Supplementary Writing Materials 81 Table 23. Writing Pedagogies in the Three Textbook Series 89 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Coding Scheme 38 Figure 2. Procedures for Coding Instructional Units 43 Figure 3. Procedures for Coding Task Units 44 Figure 4. Proportions of the Instructional Variables in the Three Series 54

    REFERENCES
    Akyel, A. & Kamisli, S. (1996). Composing in first and second language: Possible effects of ESL writing instruction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401719)
    Ariew, R. (1982). The textbook as curriculum. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher (pp. 11-33). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.
    Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
    Beach, R., & Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). The writing/reading relationship: becoming one’s own reader. In B. T. Petersen (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 64-81). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
    Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5, 10-18.
    Berlin, J. A. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50, 477-494.
    Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
    Blanton, L. (1995). Elephants and paradigms: Conversations about teaching L2 writing. College ESL, 5(1), 1-21.
    Chan, C. (2001). An Analysis of Advanced ESL Composition Textbooks. Published master thesis, Purdue University.
    Chandrasegaran, A. (1986). An exploratory study of ESL students' revision and self-correction skills. RELC Journal, 17(2), 26-40.
    Chang, L. Y. (2005). Evaluation of grammar activities in junior high school English textbooks for nine-year integrated curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Chen, L. C. T. (2002). Textbook selection for senior high school students in greater Taipei area. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Chen, L. S., et al. (2002). San Min English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 1-2. Taiwan: San Min Book Co., Ltd.
    Chen, L. S., et al. (2003). San Min English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 3-4. Taiwan: San Min Book Co., Ltd.
    Chen, L. S., et al. (2004). San Min English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 5-6. Taiwan: San Min Book Co., Ltd.
    Chen, Y. H. J. (2005). A study of compiling process and post-use evaluation of senior high school English textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in using a second language. New York: Longman.
    Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.). (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). Genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second language speakers: advantages and disadvantages. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications. Washington D.C.: United States Information Agency.
    El-Banna, A. I. (1994). The effect of formal grammar teaching on the improvement of ESL learners’ writing: An experimental study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374660)
    Engber, C. A. (1995). The Relationship of Lexical Proficiency to the Quality of ESL Compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139-55.
    Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 48, 527-542.
    Feng, S., & Kathy, P. (2005). The short-and long-term effect of explicit grammar instruction of fifth graders’ writing. Reading Improvement, 42(2), 67-72.
    Ferris, D. (1998). Teaching ESL composition-Purpose, process and practice. New Jersey: Mahwah.
    Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamar, and S. A. Walmsley, (Ed.), Research in writing (pp. 206-220). New York: Longman.
    Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Fraizer, D. (1993). Textbook and writing in the 1990s: The commodification of process and what teachers and students can do about it. Writer Instructor, 12(3), 134-43.
    Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-44. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ511958)
    Frodesen, J. (1991). Grammar and the ESL Writing Class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141-61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Gabrielatos, C. (2002). EFL Writing: Product and Process. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476839)
    Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing (pp. 263-279). New York: Longman.
    Graham, S. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 1-14.
    Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Addressing problems in attention, memory and executive functioning: An example from self-regulated strategy development. In G. Lyon & N. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 349-365). Baltimore: Brookes.
    Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York: Guilford.
    Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategy instruction. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187-207). New York: Guilford.
    Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McArthur, C. (2006). Explicitly teaching struggling writers: strategies for mastering the writing process. Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(5), 290-294.
    Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the teaching of English, 15, 75-85.
    Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (1), 43-60.
    Hildenbrand, J. (1985). Carmen: A case study of an ESL writer. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (12), 3637A.
    Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational Leadership, 44, 71-82.
    Hinds, J. (1986). The mysterious language of Japan. Journal of Ideas and Information, 17, 67-72.
    Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-109). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages.
    Ho, H. J. (2003). Investigating Distribution of Instruction Types in EFL Elementary and Junior High School Teaching Materials. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tunghai Normal University, Taichung, Taiwan.
    Horowitz, D. (1986a). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
    Horowitz, D. (1986b). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.
    Hu, S. F. (1998). Research on Evaluation Criteria of the English Textbooks in Junior High School. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.
    Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Isaacson, S. (1989). Role of secretary. vs. author: Resolving the conflict in writing instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 209-217.
    Ivanic, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220-245.
    Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories for L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-35). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Kachru, Y. (1983). English and Hindi. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 50-77.
    Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
    Kaplan, R. B. (1967). Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 10-16.
    Kim, E. J. (2001). A study on the listening and speaking activities in the middle school English textbooks. English Teaching, 56, 219-243.
    Krashen, S. (1978). Individual variation in the use of the monitor. In W. Ritchie (Ed.), Second language acquisition research (pp. 175-185). New York: Academic Press.
    Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford: Pergamon.
    Kulm, G., Roseman, J., & Treistman, M. (1999). A benchmarks-based approach to textbook evaluation. Science Books & Films, 35(4). Retrieved August, 2006, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/articles/approach.htm
    Kuo, W. C. (2002). Assessing the English textbook for elementary school developed by Tainan City. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Gong University, Tainan, Taiwan.
    Lai, P. (1986). The revision processes of first year students at the National University of Singapore. RELC Journal, 17(1), 71-84.
    Lai, Y. J. (2004). A study of college English teachers’ beliefs and practices. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chang-hua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
    Lauer, J. (1970). Heuristics and composition. College Composition and Communication, 21, 396-404.
    Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
    Leu, M. M. (2003). The use and evaluation of teaching materials for vocational high schools in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Li, H. C. (2003). Predictive evaluation, use, and retrospective evaluation of an EFL textbook by junior high school teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Lin, S. E., & Hong, H. L. (Eds.). (2004). Lung Teng English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 1-2. Taiwan: Lungteng Cultural Co., Ltd.
    Lin, S. E., & Hong, H. L. (Eds.). (2005). Lung Teng English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 3-4. Taiwan: Lungteng Cultural Co., Ltd.
    Lin, S. E., & Hong, H. L. (Eds.). (2006). Lung Teng English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 5-6. Taiwan: Lungteng Cultural Co., Ltd.
    Linden, M. J. (1985). Touchstones and tradeoffs: Some guidelines for textbook selection. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED266488).
    Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’ written English. Malmo. Sweden: Liber Forlag Malmo.
    Ma, L. L. (2002). Evaluation of current English textbooks for the elementary school: A study of English textbooks designed for the 1st —9th grades curriculum alignment in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    MacArthur, C. (1993). Integrating strategy instruction and word processing into a process approach to writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 22(4), 671-681.
    Macian, J. L. (1986). An analysis of state adopted foreign language textbooks used in first and third year high school Spanish classes. Foreign Language Annals, 19(2), 103-118.
    Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Language studies: Children writing (pp. 21-30). Geelong, Victoria, Deakin University Press.
    Matsuda, P. K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60.
    Moessner, L. (2001). Genre, text type, style, register: A terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 131-38.
    Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 516-533.
    Moragne e Silva, M. (1989). A study of composing in a first and second language. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 1(2), 132-151.
    Moragne e Silva, M. (1991). Cognitive, affective, social, and cultural aspects of composing in a first and second language: A case study of one adult writer. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(12), 4249A.
    Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. English Language Teachers Journal, 56(2), 180-186.
    Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Glasgow: Cambridge University Press.
    Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED375634).
    Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). A Practical and Complementary Approach to the Evaluation of ESL Composition Textbooks. Canadian Modern Language Review. 58 (4), 653-659.
    Pan, P. H. (2003). Evaluation of Learning Activities in Junior High School English Textbooks for Nine-year Integrated Curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Pickett, N. A. (1977). A comparison of characteristics desired by college English teachers in a composition handbook with characteristics of recent composition handbooks. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED151811)
    Polio, C, Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions.’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.
    Pullman, G. (1999). Stepping yet again into the same current. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm (pp. 16–29). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    Raimes, A. (1979). Problems and teaching strategies in ESL composition (If Johnny has problems, what about Juan, Jean, and Ywe-Han?) Language in education: Theory and practice, No. 14. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, D. C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED175243)
    Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL writers do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
    Raimes, A. (1988). The texts for teaching writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED343415)
    Raimes, Ann (1991). Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-30.
    Raphael, T. E., & Englert, C. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in constructing meaning. The Reading Teacher, 43, 6, 388-400.
    Rausch, R. R. (1983). Language art: New trends in textbooks. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ERIC ED227486)
    Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Regents/Prentice Hall.
    Reimer, C. N. (2001). Strategies for teaching writing to primary students using the writing process. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED459471)
    Reynolds, P. R. (1993). Evaluating ESL and college texts for teaching the argumentative rhetorical form. Journal of Reading, 36(6), 474-480.
    Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics, 3rd ed. Harlow: Longman.
    Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Rose, M. (1981). Sophisticated, ineffective books: The dismantling of process in composition text. College Composition and Communication, 32(1), 65-71.
    Santos, T. (1988). Professors' reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 69-90.
    Scarcella, R. & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Scardamalia, M. (1981). How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing. In Writing: nature, development, and teaching of written communication, Vol. 2, Writing: Process, development and communication (pp. 81-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28(1), 97-113.
    Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarter, 20(4), 617-648.
    Shih, Y. H., Lin, M. S., & Brooks, S. (Eds.). (2001). Far East English Reader for Senior High Schools, Vols. 1-6. Taiwan: The Far East Book Co., Ltd.
    Shuman, R. B. (1991). What are the priorities? Education Leadership, 49(2), 82.
    Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-675.
    Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Stein, M. & Dixon, R. (1994). Effective writing instruction for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23(3), 392-405.
    Susser, B. (1994). Process Approaches in ESL/EFL Writing Instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 31-47.
    Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sweedler-Brown, C. (1993). The effect of ESL errors on holistic scores assigned by English composition faculty. College ESL, 3(1), 53-69.
    Tierney, R. J. (1985). Reading-writing relationship: A glimpse of some facts. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 3, 2, 109-116.
    Tierney, R. J., Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 568-580.
    Tribble, C. (1997). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Troia, G. A. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305.
    Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-69. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ530851)
    Van, R. J., & Meyer, D. E. (1984). Error Gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 427-440.
    Victori, M. (1997). EFL composing skills and strategies: Four case studies. RESLA, 12, 163-184.
    Werlich, E. (1983). A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
    Willcott, P. (1974). Advanced EFL and traditional goals of freshman composition. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED094575)
    Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67-76.
    Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
    Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 463-485.

    QR CODE