臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

許多研究結果發現寫作者的母語對外語寫作有某種程度的影響，並且外語寫作遠比母語寫作來得複雜。為了瞭解母語對外語寫作影響之因素，先前的文獻大部分針對寫作者的中文及英文文章，以對比修辭學(contrastive rhetoric)及語言轉移(language transfer)的角度進行比較研究，較少文獻同時針對寫作者的中文與英文寫作過程同時進行分析及比較。因此，本研究觀察英文寫作初學者的中文與英文寫作過程，並比較其使用之中英文寫作策略，以便英文寫作教師瞭解英文寫作初學者的寫作過程與寫作策略使用上之困難。
參與本研究的三位英文寫作初學者，皆為應用外語系二年級的學生，其英文寫作的經驗只有一年。受測者根據相同的作文題目，以有聲思考的方式(think aloud method)分別進行中文與英文的寫作，以比較其寫作過程所使用的寫作策略。為避免英文寫作受到中文寫作的影響，每位學生先進行英文寫作，一個月之後再進行中文寫作。其寫作過程全程錄音錄影，繕打後進行資料分析。研究結果發現，英文寫作初學者的中文和英文寫作過程的差異不大，不過受測者在進行英文寫作時，所使用之寫作策略多於中文寫作策略，且使用策略的時間也較多。再者，在中文和英文的寫作過程當中，所有受測者很少重覆計畫、寫作及修改的過程。此外，受測者的中英文寫作過程符合文獻上所描述的「知識性講述模式」(knowledge telling model)。
根據本研究之發現，茲針對台灣英文寫作教學提出下列建議：首先，學生應藉由廣泛及深入的大量閱讀以提升英文程度；第二，希望教師能針對學生所缺乏之寫作策略進行教學，並設計相關練習活動，以加強其策略使用能力；第三，培養學生的後設認知，以察覺及監控自己的寫作過程，並教導如何有效地使用策略，以解決寫作上的困難及提升寫作能力。此外，建議未來的研究可針對受測者不同的中英文寫作能力或學習寫作的經驗，深入比較其寫作策略，或是進一步探究語文寫作策略之間的轉移效應。

Many researchers claimed that EFL writers’ L2 writing was likely to be affected by their L1 (e.g., Kuo, 1999; Liu, 1999; Raimes, 1985; You, 2000; Zamel, 1983) and that L2 writing process should be more complex than that of L1 writing. However, the previous research exploring how L1 influenced L2 writing mostly focused on the aspect of contrastive rhetoric and discourse transfer (e.g., Bosher, 1998; Chou, 1989; Hinds, 1990; Kaplan, 1966; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1982; Kobayashi, 1984; Kubota, 1998; Leki, 1992; Matalene, 1985; Odlin, 1989; Sasaki, 2000; Silva, 1993). Yet there is limited number of studies focusing on writers’ both L1 and L2 writing processes. This study, thus, intends to investigate EFL inexperienced writers’ L1 and L2 writing processes and compare the similarities and differences between both writing processes by means of think aloud method. It is hoped the findings of this study can help writing instructors get further glimpse of EFL inexperienced writers’ deficiencies of writing abilities and difficulties in using writing strategies.
The three sophomores, recruited to participate in this study, were from the Department of Applied Foreign Languages (DAFL) at a university of science and technology in central Taiwan. They were regarded as inexperienced writers for they only had one-year writing experience. In order to avoid the impact of L1 writing on L2 writing, the subjects were requested to write an expository essay in L2 first, and then in L1 on the same topic one month later. The thinking aloud processes were audio- and videotaped, and they were then transcribed and analyzed in depth.
The findings were as follows. Firstly, there is slight difference between the EFL inexperienced writers’ L1 and L2 writing processes. The types of writing strategies and the total amount of strategy use time in L2 writing were more than those in L1 writing. Secondly, during the L1 and L2 composing processes, the EFL inexperienced writers seem to undergo a linear process in L1 and L2 writing. Thirdly, the EFL inexperienced writers’ both writing processes were featured as knowledge telling model (cf. Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987).
Based on the findings of this study, several pedagogical implications were recommended in the following. Firstly, students’ language proficiency should be enhanced through extensive and intensive reading. Secondly, it was suggested that writing instructors should instruct knowledge of strategy, design various classroom activities to develop students’ strategy use according to students’ needs and deficiencies. Thirdly, writing instructors should develop EFL inexperienced writers’ metacognitive knowledge of English writing to make them aware of and monitor their own writing processes. They should teach students when and how to efficiently use strategies to solve the encountered writing problems and improve writing ability. Besides, future studies were suggested to include EFL writers with different L1 or L2 literacy proficiency and learning experiences as participants to further compare their writing strategy use and investigate transfer of writing strategy across languages.

CHINESE ABSTRACT i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEGEMNETS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Purposes of the Study 4
Research Questions 4
Definitions of Terms 4
Significance of the Study 6

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 8
Models of Composing Process 8
Flower and Hayes’ Model of Cognitive Process Theory of Writing 9
Scardamalia and Bereiter’s Models of Composing Process 14
Hayes’ New Writing Model 17
Grabe and Kaplan’s Model of Writing as Communicative Language Use 22
Summary 25
Characteristics of Inexperienced Writers 26
Characteristics of NES Inexperienced Writers 27
Characteristics of ESL/EFL Inexperienced Writers 28
Summary 31
L2 Writing Processes Performed by ESL/EFL Writers 32
Impact of ESL/EFL Writers’ Native Language 33
Negative Impact of ESL/EFL Writers’ Native Language 34
Positive Impact of ESL/EFL Writers’ Native Language 36
Summary 37

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 39
Subjects 39
Instruments 39
Think-aloud Method 40
Writing Task 42
Procedures of Data Collection 43
Data Analysis 44
Coding Scheme 44
Procedures of Data Analysis 56
Analysis of Thinking Aloud Protocols 56
Analysis of Digitalized Image Files 59
Summary 60

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 62
Results of Strategy Use in the L1 and L2 Writing Processes 62
The Three EFL Inexperienced Writers’ Strategy Use in L1 Writing Task 63
The Three EFL Inexperienced Writers’ Strategy Use in L2 Writing Task 64
Results of Time Spent in Both L1 and L2 Writing Tasks 66
Results of Time Spent in L1 Writing Task 66
Results of Total Writing Time 66
Results of Time Spent on Strategy Use 67
Comparison of the Time Spent on Writing Strategies 72
Results of Time Spent in L2 Writing Task 74
Results of Total Writing Time 75
Results of Time Spent on Strategy Use 75
Comparison of the Time Spent on Writing Strategies 80
Comparison of Time Spent in Both Writing Tasks 82
Comparison of Strategy Type in Both Writing Tasks 84

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 86
Summary of the Findings 86
The EFL Inexperienced Writers’ L1 Writing Processes 87
The EFL Inexperienced Writers’ L2 Writing Processes 87
Similarities and Differences of Both L1 and L2 Writing Processes 88
Discussions 89
Both L1 and L2 Writing Processes as Linear Processes 89
The EFL Inexperienced Writers as Knowledge Tellers in L1 and L2 Writing Processes 93
The EFL Inexperienced Writers Tended to Adopt More Writing Strategies in L2 Writing 97
Summary 98
Pedagogical Implications 100
Delimitations of the Study 104
Suggestions for Future Studies 105
Conclusions 106

REFERENCES 108

APPENDICES 113
APPENDIX A Subject A’s Strategy Use in Both Writing Tasks 113
APPENDIX B Subject B’s Strategy Use in Both Writing Tasks 115
APPENDIX C Subject C’s Strategy Use in Both Writing Tasks 121
APPENDIX D The EFL Inexperienced Writer’s Thinking Aloud Protocols of L1 Writing 125
APPENDIX E The EFL Inexperienced Writer’s Thinking Aloud Protocols of L2 Writing 130

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Writing Strategies ESL/EFL Writers Need 46
Table 3.2 The Example of Time Spent on Writing Strategies Applied by the Subjects in L1 and L2 Writing 60
Table 4.1 The Subjects’ Total Writing Time in L1 Writing Task 67
Table 4.2 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by Subject A in L1 Writing Task 68
Table 4.3 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by Subject B in L1 Writing Task 69
Table 4.4 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by Subject C in L1 Writing Task 71
Table 4.5 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by the Subjects in L1 Writing Task 72
Table 4.6 The Subjects’ Total Writing Time in L2 Writing Task 75
Table 4.7 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by Subject A in L2 Writing Task 76
Table 4.8 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by Subject B in L2 Writing Task 77
Table 4.9 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by Subject C in L2 Writing Task 79
Table 4.10 Time Spent on Writing Strategy Use Applied by the Subjects in L2 Writing Task 80
Table 4.11 Time Percentage of Writing Strategy Use Applied by the Subjects in L1 and L2 Writing 82
Table 4.12 Writing Strategies Performed by the Subjects in Both Writings 84



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Structure of writing model proposed by Flower and Hayes (1981) 10
Figure 2.2 Structure of knowledge telling model proposed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1987) 15
Figure 2.3 Structure of knowledge transforming model proposed by Scardamalia and Bereiter (1987) 16
Figure 2.4 Structure of general organization of the new model proposed by Hayes (1996) 18
Figure 2.5 Structure of model of writing as communicative language use proposed by Grabe and Kaplan (1996) 23
Figure 3.1 The example of process of strategy use undergone by Subject A in L1 writing 57
Figure 5.1 Writing Strategies performed by Subject A in L1 writing 90
Figure 5.2 Writing Strategies performed by Subject A in L2 writing 91
Figure 5.3 Writing Strategies performed by Subject A in L2 writing 91
Figure 5.4 Writing Strategies performed by Subject B in L1 writing 94
Figure A.1 Writing Strategies performed by Subject A in L1 writing 113
Figure A.2 Writing Strategies performed by Subject A in L2 writing 114
Figure B.1 Writing Strategies performed by Subject B in L1 writing 115
Figure B.2 Writing Strategies performed by Subject B in L2 writing 119
Figure C.1 Writing Strategies performed by Subject C in L1 writing 121
Figure C.2 Writing Strategies performed by Subject C in L2 writing 123

Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian students on secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205-241.
Chen, F. Y. (2003). The EFL beginning writers’ perception and metacognitive knowledge of English writing—A study on the freshman at a university of science and technology. Unpublished master’s thesis, National University of Science and Technology of Yunlin, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Cheng, C. K. (1998). The use of think-aloud protocols in investigation of second language reading. Paper presented at the 1998-9 Seminar. English Department, University of Chinese Culture.
Chou, H. L. (1989). Contrastive rhetoric: Chinese and English. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 6, 251-267.
Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 105-127). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Feng, H. P. (1999). Writing from Sources in an EFL context: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the Seventeenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, 17, 310-321.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition Communication, 32, 356-387.
Garson, J. G., & Leki, I. (Eds.) (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Towards a theory of writing. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective (pp. 202-236). New York: Longman.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 33-68). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Michale Levy, Sarah Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing: theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, N. J.: L. Erlbum.
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 Pedogogical Perspectives (pp. 87-110). Alexandrai, Va: TESOL.
Jacob, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologies, 22, 255-278.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.
Kobayashi, H. (1984). Rhetorical patterns in Englsih and Japanese. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 737-734.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42(2), 183-215.
Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69-100.
Kuo, S. L., & Tseng, S. D. (1987). Writing as a cognitive process: A protocol analysis. Proceedings of the Third Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 3, 263-280.
Kuo, W. H. (1999). A case study of L1-L2 transfer of rhetorical patterns of three university students in Taiwan. Unpulished master’s thesis, National University of Tsing Hua, Hsinzhu, Taiwan.
Lay, N. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners. TESOL QUARTERLY, 16(3), 406.
Lee, I. C., & You, Y. L. (2005). The writing strategies EFL writers need. Proceedings of 2005 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Taipei, 274-283.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth: Byonton/ Cook.
Lin, C. Y. (1986). A second thought on Robert Kaplan’s theory of Chinese thought pattern. Papers from the Third Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 3, 187-196.
Liu, C. K. (1996). Research on English composition. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Liu, C. K. (1997). Locations of L1-L2 translation that occur in English writing. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei, 6, 401-416.
Liu, C. K. (1999). Identifying the writing processes a college student has to undergo: The generating model. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 16, 303-312.
Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47(8), 789-807.
Mohan B. A., & Lo, W. A-Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perl, S. (1978). Five writers’ writing: Case studies of the composing processes of unskilled college writers. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, University of New York, New York.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled writers 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(3), 439-468.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, 2: reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351-371.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677.
You , Y. L. (2000). Language transfer and logical thinking in EFL writing. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 17, 108-120.
You, Y. L. (2002). Taiwanese college students’ metacognitive awareness of writing in English. Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2003). The differences between L2 mature and immature writers: A metacognitive approach. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 20, 597-609.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2004). The impacts of self-regulation upon EFL writers’ performance. Proceedings of the 21st Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 21, 787-798.
You, Y. L., Lee, I. C., & Joe, S. G. (2005). Comparing EFL mature writers’ L1 and L2 writing processes. Proceedings of the 22th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei, 22, 368-378.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.