臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在現今大學階段英語課程設計中，語言課程往往獨立於概念課程(content course)之外而單獨教授，此種設計方式乃假設語言課程中所習得之知識與技能可用於課堂之外，即便在課堂內外情境大相逕庭情況下。然而，此種普遍性遷移(general transfer)之假設，卻尚未獲心理學研究之證實。此外，學習遷移研究常侷限於探討作業相似度(task similarity)與學習者認知(learner cognition)等變項，卻未詳究情感性因素(affective factors)之影響。因此，本研究旨在 (1)驗證現今大學階段英語課程設計之假設--普遍性遷移，(2)調查作文學習遷移之成效(Transfer Effects)，並(3)探討遷移成效與英語學習動機(Motivation Towards Learning English)間之關係。
本研究中受試者乃十二位台灣大一英語系同學，她們同時修習英文作文課與概念課程(其授課內容與作文無關)。學習遷移之成效將以作文平均錯誤比率(mean error rates)量化，亦即在作文課進步為前提之下，將作文課第一篇作文中所求得之平均錯誤比率與與英語導論課學期末之作文相減之差，擬定為遷移成效。研究中錯誤之類型，包括：斷句(Sentence Break)、動詞時態(Verb Tense)、句法凝結性(Grammatical Cohesion)、文意連貫性(Coherence)。各錯誤類型之平均錯誤比率，將與英語學習動機求相關，以確知遷移成效與英語學習動機間之關係為何。而英語學習動機將使用李克特量表(Likert scale)加以量化，共計二十四道題目，用以測量三個子變項：英語學習態度(Attitudes Towards Learning English)、英語學習熱誠(Desire to Learn English)、動機強度(Motivational Intensity)。
魏克遜配對組帶符號等級檢定考驗(Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Tests)結果顯示：唯有斷句呈現正遷移(positive transfer)。但是若只考量作文課中平均錯誤比率減少之學生，則斷句，動詞時態，與句法凝結性，各呈現正遷移(positive transfer)、零遷移(zero transfer) 、負遷移(negative transfer)。至於文意連貫性，則因受限文章長度，而不予討論。另外，英語學習動機與斷句及動詞時態遷移效果之間，呈現高度負相關；就斷句而言，英語學習態度與英語學習熱誠比動機強度更能突顯負相關；至於動詞時態，三個子變項皆同等重要；而句法凝結性，則因相關係數太小，以致兩者並未有任何關係。
斷句之正遷移效果，或與有限教學與改錯之提供，足夠之練習，英語學習經驗之累積，課程間相似作業之給予，與簡單技巧之運用有關。 一般而言，此技巧或許因過於簡單，而在短短一學期內便能自動無誤地表現，並不需覺知課程間作業之相似程度(Perceived Task Similarity)。對於動詞時態與句法凝結性而言，學生在作文課中進步幅度少，以致於遷移效果並不顯著，該結果應與作文學習成果之缺乏(假學習)，作文練習之不足，具挑戰性作業之欠缺，語言困難度之增加，與在作文語型注意力及時間之需要有關。而學生亦須覺察兩課程間之作文作業相似，才能轉移學習效果。對於以上三種錯誤類型而言，研究結果顯示：英語導論之期末成績，與學習遷移並無相關；此項結果並不符合心理學研究中越熟稔概念課程者越具備高遷移能力；或許這與學生用心於其他語言問題上有關。
英語學習動機與斷句及動詞時態學習遷移效果，呈現負相關之結果，推翻前人所謂「英語學習動機決定語言學習或遷移之成效」。然而，在後續問卷之分析中，我們依舊發現：學生對於英語作文態度與學習或遷移效果呈現負相關。持續負相關的研究結果，提高英語學習動機與學習遷移效果之間負相關之可能性，而該結果仍須後人加以進一步研究探討。
有限之正向遷移效果，或許意謂著普遍性學習遷移確有其存在之意義，即便其成效僅止於斷句之文法正確性上。然而，倘若學生可以在初步學習作文時，便能達更精熟之程度，或許他們亦能廣泛應用所學於其他地方。值得一提的是，本實驗受限於少額受試者，取樣方法，與其他變因之干擾，因此，此課程設計是否有確其成效，仍有待商榷。雖具局限性，本研究仍為此後學習遷移之探討，奠定初步基礎，並提供寶貴建議。

In current college-level English curriculum design, the separation of skills courses from content courses has operated on the implicit assumption that knowledge or skills taught in language courses can be applied outside these classes─that they will transfer to new situations even if those situations differ greatly from the original learning situation. This assumption of more general transfer nonetheless has not yet been validated in psychological studies. Research on transfer, furthermore, has been largely restricted to task similarity and learner cognition and has given little attention to affective factors. This study, thus, aimed to examine (1) the assumption behind current English curriculum design, more general transfer; (2) the composition transfer effects; and (3) the association between Transfer Effects and Motivation Towards Learning English.
In this study, twelve Taiwanese freshman English majors who were simultaneously enrolled in a writing course and an unrelated content course were examined. Transfer Effects were operationalized in terms of mean error rates obtained from a comparison of the first writing in the composition class with the one writing in the content course, produced at the end of the term. Writing improvement in the composition class was taken as a precondition for transfer. The target errors were of four kinds: Sentence Break, Verb Tense, Grammatical Cohesion, and Coherence. The error data were correlated with Motivation data obtained from a 24-item Likert scale on Motivation (including the three subscales Attitudes Towards Learning English, Desire to Learn English, and Motivational Intensity) to investigate how Transfer Effect was related to Motivation.
Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Tests showed positive transfer in Sentence Break. Individual analyses of those learners who had reduced their errors in the writing course revealed positive, zero, and negative transfer for Sentence Break, Verb Tense, and Grammatical Cohesion respectively. Coherence was excluded because of problems involving writing length. In addition, Motivation was negatively related to Transfer Effects in Sentence Break and Verb Tense. For Sentence Break, Attitudes Towards Learning English and Desire to Learn English displayed a closer negative relation to transfer than did Motivational Intensity, but for Verb Tense, the three sub-variables displayed equally negative correlations. As to Grammatical Cohesion, the correlations were too weak to indicate a relation between Motivation and Transfer Effects.
The significant positive transfer in Sentence Break might primarily be due to the limited instruction/correction, adequate amount of practice, accrued general exposure to the L2, the high degree of task similarity, and the simplicity of the skill itself. In general, the skill is simple enough to be automated within a semester and so it could be accurately used even without Perceived Task Similarity. For Verb Tense and Grammatical Cohesion, small gains in the writing class might have been accompanied by Transfer Effects in an uninteresting sense, possibly resulting from the low degree of initial learning (pseudolearning), insufficient writing practice, difficult content tasks, language difficulty, and inadequate attention and time allocated to forms in writing. The learners still had to perceive task similarity in order for transfer to occur. For all the error types, final content grades were unrelated to Transfer Effects, despite the fact that increased expertise in the content area (measured by grades in this case) is generally believed to facilitate transfer because it frees attentional resources for other tasks. This finding might be due to learners focusing their attention on language problems other than those studied here.
The negative effects of Motivation on Learning/Transfer in Sentence Break and Verb Tense violated the previous claim that Motivation determines language learning or transfer. But negative relations were consistently obtained between Attitudes Towards Writing and Learning/Transfer Effects in the analysis of the follow-up survey. The results raise the possibility that there is a genuine negative relation between Motivation and Transfer/Learning and so motivate further investigation.
The restricted positive transfer might suggest that general transfer (as assumed in the current curriculum design of English departments) did occur. But it might have been obtained more generally if a higher level of initial composition learning had occurred. Insomuch as this study was restricted by small sample size, sampling methods, and other confounding factors, the effectiveness of this curriculum design might need to be verified hereafter. For future research on transfer, this exploratory investigation has given valuable suggestions and established a preliminary foundation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
中文摘要…………………………………………………….……………………………..i
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………...iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………….……………………………...vi
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………….…………………………..vii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………....……………………………..ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………....……………………………...x
CHAPTER ONE — INTRODUCTION………………………..……………………………..1
CHAPTER TWO — REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……….……..……………………6
1 Overview………...…………………………………….…………………………….6
2. Transfer……..……………………………………..…………………………………6
2.1 Transfer design/paradigm and its limitation..……………………………….…6
2.2 Development of transfer theory……………..………………………………..8
2.3 Factors that influence transfer effects………..……………………………...15
3. The Four Target Errors……………………………..……………………………...22
3.1 Sentence Break……...……….……………..……………………………….23
3.2 Verb Tense..………………….……………..………………………………23
3.3 Grammatical Cohesion……………………..……………………………….25
3.4 Coherence….………………………………..…………………………………31
4. Purposes of Research……………………………..………………………………..34
5. Research Questions……………………………………………………………….35
CHAPTER THREE — METHODOLOGY………………..………………………………..36
1. Overview……………………………………………..……………………………36
2. Participants…………………………………………..……………………………..36
3. Research Designs……………………………………..……………………………37
3.1 The transfer design….…………………………..…………………………..37
3.2 The motivation survey.………………………..……………………………..38
3.3 The correlation design..………………………..…………………………….39
4. Writing Instruction…………………………………..……………………………..40
5. Measurements of Transfer Effects and Motivation…..……………………………..41
5.1 An error analysis………………………………..…………………………..41
5.1.1 Identification of the four error types……..……………………………41
5.1.1.1 Sentence Break…..………………..………………………….41
5.1.1.2 Verb Tense……..…………………...…………………………42
5.1.1.3 Grammatical Cohesion………..…..………………………….42
5.1.1.4 Coherence………………………..……………………………43
5.1.2 Calculation of error rate data…………..……………………………..44
5.2 Validity and reliability of error coding………………………………………45
5.3 A Motivation questionnaire...…………………….………………………..45
5.4 Validity and reliability of motivation data….…..…………………………….46
6. Data Collection Procedures…………………………..……………………………47
6.1 Collection of error data………………………..……………………………..47
6.2 Collection of Motivation and transfer data….….…………………………...48
7. Data Analysis Methods……………………………….…………………………….49
CHAPTER FOUR — RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………..…………………………….51
1 Overview……………………………………………..…………………………….51
2. Results of Current Study…...…………………………..………………………..…52
2.1 Transfer Effects per error types…………….……..…………………..….52
2.1.1 Sentence Break…...……………….……..………………………..….52
2.1.2 Verb Tense………...……………….………..……………………..…55
2.1.3 Grammatical Cohesion……...…….………..…………………..….57
2.1.4 Coherence………………………….……..……………………..…..58
2.1.5 Summary…………………………….……..…..……………………..60
2.2 The relations between Transfer Effects and Motivation…….…………..….60
2.2.1 Sentence Break………..………………………….…..…………..….60
2.2.2 Verb Tense……………...……………………………..………………63
2.2.3 Grammatical Cohesion……..…………………….…..……………..65
2.2.4 Summary……………………………………………..……………….66
3. Discussion of Findings……………………………………………..……………..67
3.1 Transfer Effects………………………………………….…..…..………..….67
3.1.1 Sentence Break…………...…………………………..……………..67
3.1.2 Verb Tense………………..……………………….…..……………..75
3.1.3 Grammatical Cohesion………...……………………..……………..80
3.1.4 Summary……………………………………………..……………..84
3.2 The relations between Transfer Effects and Motivation.…….……………....85
CHAPTER FIVE — CONCLUSION……………………………………..……………..…93
1. Overview…...…………………………………………………..……………..……93
2. Limitations of Current Study……..……………………………..……………..….93
3. Future Research Direction……………………………………..……………..……94
4. Implications for Curriculum Design…………………………..…………..………100
5. Conclusion...…………………………………………………..…………..………101
REFERENCES……………………………………………………….……………..……103
APPENDIX A — A Questionnaire of Motivation and Perceived Task Similarity……..….109
APPENDIX B — Consent Form………………………………………………………..….111
APPENDIX C — A Motivation and Writing Questionnaire………………………….…….112
APPENDIX D — Table of Mean Scores of the Target Variables in the Follow-Up Survey……………………………………………………………………………………..113APPENDIX E — Table of Correlations Between the Target Variables in the Follow-Up Survey and Motivation………..………………………………………………………………....114
APPENDIX F — Table of Correlations Between the Target Variables in the Follow-Up Survey and Learning/Transfer Effects……………………………………………………………..115

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J. R. (1987). Compilation of weak-method problem solutions. Psychological Review, 94, 192-210.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1322-1340.
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43-65). Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Beaugrand, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
Biggs, J. (1989). Institutional learning and the integration of knowledge. In J. I. Balla, M. Gibson, & A. M. Chang (Eds.), Learning in medical school: A model for the clinical professions. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Brooks, L. W., & Danserau, D. F. (1987). Transfer of information: An instructional perspective. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 121-150). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1981). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrel, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1992). Formal grammar instruction: An educator comments…TESOL Quarterly, 26, 406-409.
Chang, V. W. (1997). Freshman English composition: An error analysis from discourse perspective. Taipei: Crane.
Chang, C.C. (1999). A case study of the effect of error correction on the grammatical structures of three Chinese university students’ EFL writing. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physic problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Chiang, T. H. (1981). Error analysis: A study of errors made in written English by Chinese learners. Taipei: Crane.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.
Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1980). A framework of a cognitive theory of writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 51-72). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Cronnell, B. (1980). Punctuation and capitalization: A review of the literature. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 404)
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 1-18.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.
Dörnyei, Z. (1996). Moving language learning motivation to a larger platform for theory and practice. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 71-80). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, H. C. (1965). The transfer of learning. New York: Macmillan.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enkvist, N. K. (1990). Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 10-28). Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Review, 8, 1-11.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253-292.
Freedman, S. W., & Calfee, R. C. (1984). Understanding and comprehending. Written Communication, 1, 459-490.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovick, C. W., & Yekovick, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Little Brown.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., & Moorcroft, R. (1985). The role of attitudes and motivation in second language learning: Correlational and experimental considerations. Language Learning, 35, 207-227.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn’t effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 213, 57-72.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993a). A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993b). A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362.
Gay, L R., & Airasian, P., (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 13- 46). San Diego: Academic Press.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Harlow, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56, 51-65.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. NY: Newbury House.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, thought, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-399.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
Huang, T. L. (1988). Performance analysis and teaching EFL composition: A general teaching model. Taipei: Crane.
Johns, A. M., (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 247-265.
Johns, A. M. (1988). The discourse communities dilemma: Identifying transferable skills for the academic milieu. ESP, 7, 55-60.
Johns, A. M., (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Judd, C. H. (1927). Psychology of secondary education. Boston: Ginn.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Formal grammar instruction… another educator comments …TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722-725.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245-257.
Lautamatti, L. K. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lightbown, P. M., & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen’s ‘ Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction.’ Two readers react. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 717-722.
Lin, C. C. (1995). The topic sentence and contrastive rhetoric: Pedagogical implications in EFL writing. A collection of papers presented in the Ninth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 240-253). Taipei: Crane.
Long, M. H. (1983). Does instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359-382.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mandler, G. (1962). From association to structure. Psychological Review, 69, 415-427.
Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1975). Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 725-734.
Mikulecky, L., and others. (1994). Literary transfer: A review of the literature. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 340).
Ngeow, K. Y. H. (1998). Motivation and transfer in language learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 318).
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Ormrod, J. E. (1995). Human learning (2nd ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review, 56, 132-143.
Oxford, R. (1996). New pathways of language learning motivation. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 1-8). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1996). Language learning motivation in a new key. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp.121-144). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46, 22-32.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. P. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 149-169.
Sandiford, P. (1963). Reciprocal improvement in learning. In R. F. Grose & R. C. Birney (Eds.), Transfer of learning: An enduring problem in psychology (pp. 6-26). Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
Schachter, J., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Some observations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 11 (4), 441-451.
Schneider, M. L. (1985). Levels of cohesion: Distinguishing between two groups of college writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1989). Analyzing topical structure: Not all topics are equal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648.
Singley, M., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22, 29-51.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Sullivan, K. E. (1994). Paragraph practice. (7th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R.S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 40, 247-261, 57-364.
Tremblay, R. C., & Gardner, P.F. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1998). Unconscious second language acquisition: Alive and well. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 25, 115-131.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
VanPatten, B. (1988). How juries get hung: Problems with the evidence for a focus on form in teaching. Language learning, 38, 243-260.
Wikborg, E. (1985). Unspecified topic in university student essays. Text, 5, 359-370.
Wikborg, E. (1990). Types of cohesion breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. In U. Connor, & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 133-149). Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Witte, S. P. (1983). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgments of students’ writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.
Yu, H. Y. (1997). A study on the use of English tense-aspect forms in native compositions by Taiwanese college students and its pedagogical implications. Ph. D. dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.