中文摘要
本研究探討英語為外語之學生在讀寫任務中寫作策略的使用。自1980年代時期，閱讀和寫作兩者皆被視為是意義發現和意義創造之認知過程，閱讀和寫作是基於共享認知過程和認知知識而相關。然而，探討閱讀寫作關係之研究大部分著重在閱讀增進寫作能力之效應；而從讀寫過程中，認知策略使用之相關研究依然不足。因此，本研究旨在探討英語為外語之學生在讀寫任務中選擇使用文本內容之類型，以及使用文本內容之策略。另外，本研究試圖檢視選用文本內容之原因，以及外語學生在讀寫任務中挑選和使用文本內容之相似和差異之處。
本研究對象為九名英語系研究生。九名研究對象先接受寫作能力測驗，並分為較具寫作技巧、具有寫作技巧及較少寫作技巧三組，然後完成一項讀寫任務。此讀寫任務要求學生先閱讀四篇文本，然後撰寫一篇關於故事演說之文章。完成此讀寫任務後，在兩週內訪談研究對象。研究者係依據挑選文本內容及使用文本內容之編碼基模，針對研究對象之作文以及訪談博多稿進行分析。
本研究首先發現外語學生在寫作文章中挑選文本中事實內容(the fact information)多於其見解內容(the opinion information)。第二，在讀寫任務中，三組寫作者對直接引用(direct quoting)、修改(modifying)以及釋寫(paraphrasing)三項寫作策略使用最多。較具寫作技巧者及具有寫作技巧者使用摘要(summarizing)及推論(inferencing)策略多於較少寫作技巧者；而較少寫作技巧者使用直接引用策略則多於較具寫作技巧者及具有寫作技巧者。第三，選用文本內容至寫作文章裡受到五大因素影響，即(一)選用文本內容與寫作文章之主旨相符，（二）選用文本內容與寫作文章之關連性，（三）選用文本內容之重要性及在文本中之重覆性，（四）選用文本內容資料之豐富性及多元性，（五）文章寫作者對文本內容之認同。
根據研究結果，本研究建議英語寫作教師應明確教導讀寫任務之寫作認知策略性知識。此外，本研究建議英語寫作教師給予學生各種形式之讀寫任務充分練習。



關鍵詞：讀寫任務，英語為外語之學生，挑選文本內容，使用文本內容

ABSTRACT
The study intends to investigate the EFL writers’ writing strategy use in reading-to-write tasks. Since the 1980s reading and writing are both considered as active cognitive process of meaning discovery and meaning making; they are related based on the shared cognitive process and knowledge. However, the previous empirical studies exploring the relationship between reading and writing mostly focus on the effects of reading on improving writing proficiency; whereas the cognitive strategies employed in the process of composing from sources are still remain less explored. This study thus aims to explore what type of information the EFL writers selected from the reading material (source texts) to be integrated into their writing tasks and the strategy use of information integration among the EFL writers in reading-to-write tasks. Also, the research attempts to examine the reasons for integrating the selected information from source reading material into compositions and the similarities and differences of information selection and information integration among the EFL writers in writing strategy use in reading-to-write tasks.
Nine English-majored graduate students participated in this study. The writing placement test was conducted for classifying them as the more skilled, the skilled, and the less skilled writers. They were, then, asked to accomplish a reading-to-write task. When performing the reading-to-write task, they were firstly required to read the four pieces of the source texts on storytelling in advance; then write an essay that requires them for the topic “Storytelling.” After finishing the writing task, a semi-structured retrospective interview was conducted with each subject individually within two weeks. The written products of the writing tasks and the semi-structured retrospective interview protocols were collected and further analyzed in terms of two coding schemes of information selection and information integration.
The results showed firstly that the EFL writers selected more the fact information of the source texts than the opinion information of the source texts in their writing tasks. Secondly, three strategies of information integration – direct quoting, modifying, and paraphrasing – are most applied in completing the reading-to-write tasks among the three groups of writers. The more skilled and the skilled writers used the strategies of summarizing and inferencing more than the less skilled writers do; while the less skilled writers used the strategy of direct quoting more than the other two writer groups in their writing tasks. Finally, the five factors contributing to integrating the selected information from the source texts into their writings generally were (a) the topic consistency between the selected information and the EFL writers’ compositions, (b) the selected information which is coherent and relevant to the EFL writers’ main thesis of writings, (c) the significance and repetition frequency of the selected information in the source texts, (d) the selected information which is resourceful and informative to be referred to with lots of relative data, and (e) the recognition of the writers toward the authors’ perspectives in the source texts.
Based on the findings of the study, it is suggested that there was a need for explicit instruction on strategic knowledge involved in reading-to-write tasks. In addition, the EFL writing teachers are suggested to sufficiently expose students to different types of reading-to-write tasks.

Key words: reading-to-write task, the EFL writer, information selection, information integration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (CHINESE) i
ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) iii
ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Purposes of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Definitions of the Terms 7
Significance of the Study 9

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Reading-Writing Connection 12
Rationales of Reading and Writing Relationships 12
Research on Composing from Sources 17
Research on Strategies used in Reading-to-Write Tasks 22
Characteristics of Skilled and Unskilled EFL Writers 24
Characteristics of Skilled Writers 24
Characteristics of Unskilled Writers 25

CHAPTER THREE METHDOLOGY 26
Participants 26
Instruments 28
The Reading-to-Write Task 28
Semi-structured Retrospective Interview 34
Data Collection Procedures 36
Data Analysis 37
The Coding scheme 38
Data Analysis Procedures 39
The Pilot Study 44

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 47
Types of Information Selection among the EFL Writers 48
Information Integration Strategies among the EFL Writers 50
Differences in Making Selected Information across the Three Writer Groups
65
The Mark of Information Selection by the More Skilled Writer 67
The Mark of Information Selection by the Skilled Writer 71
The Mark of Information Selection by the Less Skilled Writer 76
Reasons for Integrating the Selected Information into Writing 83

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 93
Summary of Findings of the Study 93
Discussions 96
Differences in Type of Information Selection among the More Skilled, the Skilled, and the Less Skilled Writers 96
Differences in Mark of Information Selection among the More Skilled, the Skilled, and the Less Skilled Writers 99
Differences in Strategies of Information Integration among the More Skilled, the Skilled, and the Less Skilled Writers 103
Pedagogical Implications 108
Delimitations of the Study 109
Suggestions for Future Studies 110
Conclusions 111

REFERENCES 113

APPENDIXES 122
Appendix A The Reading-to-Write Task I 122
Appendix B Interview Guide for the Interviewees 123
Appendix C Sample Transcript of the Interview 125

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 The average scores of writing placement tests 28
Table 3.2 Tokens (and Percentage) for Vocabulary Range of the Four Source Texts 32
Table 3.3 The Readability of the Four Source Texts 33
Table 3.4 The Interview Questions (translated) 35
Table 3.5 The Coding Scheme for Selecting Information 38
Table 3.6 The Coding Scheme for Integrating Strategy 39
Table 3.7 Sample Analysis of Types of Information on Source Texts 40
Table 3.8 Sample Analysis of Types of the Selected Information on Written Texts. 41
Table 3.9 Sample Analysis of Writing Strategies on Written Texts. 42
Table 4.1 Percentages of Types of Selected Information on Written Texts 48
Table 4.2 Strategies/Acts of Information Integration of EFL Writers Employed 50
Table 4.3 Frequencies and Percentages of Writing Strategies EFL Writers Employed 63
Table 4.4 Summary of Selecting information from Source Texts across the Three Writer Groups 66

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Key Features of Students’ Task Representations 14
Figure 3.1 Steps of conducting data collection 36
Figure 4.1 Sample of Underlined Information by the More Skilled Writer 69
Figure 4.2 Sample of Underlined Information by the Skilled Writer 74
Figure 4.3 Sample of Underlined Information by the Less Skilled Writer 80

REFERENCES
Allen, Simone. (2004). Task representation of a Japanese L2 writer and its impact on the usage of source text information. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14, 77-89.
Applebee, A. (1978). The child’s concept of a story. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Aulls, M. W. (1985, Fall). Understanding the relationship between reading and writing. Educational Horizons, 39-44.
Basham, C., Ray, R., & Whalley, E. (1993). Cross-cultural perspectives on task representation in reading to write. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 299-314). New York: Newbury House.
Bleich, D. (1986). Cognitive stereoscope and the study of language. In B. T. Peterson (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 99-114). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Butler, A., & Turbill, J. (1984). Towards a reading-writing classroom. Roxelle, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.
Carrell, P. L. & Connor, U. (1991). Reading and writing descriptive and persuasive texts. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (3), 314-323.
Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. E. (Eds.). (1988). Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L. Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., and Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading-writing relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 245-266.
Carson, J. G. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Eds.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 88-101). New York: Cambridge.
Carson, J. G. (1993). Reading for writing: Cognitive perspectives. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 85-104). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Carson, J. G. (2001). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 48-165). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Chen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 41-58, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. C. (2003). Writing from sources: summary and response writing by four EFL graduate students. Master’s Thesis, Providence University.
Chen, Y. M. (1998). 國內英文作文教學之回顧與展望. Proceeding of the Fifteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 331-344, Taiwan.
Chi, F. M. (1999). Reading to write as an intertextual process: Perspective on development. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 241-252, Taipei: Crane.
Connor, U. M. & Kramer, M. G. (1995). Writing from sources: Case studies of graduate students in business management. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp.155-182).
Evanechko, P., Ollila, L., & Armstrong, R. (1974). An investigation of the relationship between children’s performance in written language and their writing ability. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 315-326.
Farnan, N. (1983). A perspective on reading and writing as similar cognitive process. Master’s thesis, San Diego State University.
Feng, H. P. (2000). Writing from sources in an EFL context: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 20, 310-319. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Ferris, J. A., & Snyder, G. (1986). Writing as an influence on reading. Jouranl of Reading, 29(8), 751-756.
Flahive, D., & Baliey, N. (1993). Exploring reading/writing relationships in adult second language learners. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 128-140). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1987). Reading and writing relations: Assumptions and directions. In J. Squire (Ed.), The dynamics of language learning (pp. 9-26). Urbana, IL: National Conference in Research in English.
Flower, L. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50, 528-550.
Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. S. Flower, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21-32.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1983). Reading and writing relationships: Pragmatic functions. Language Arts, 60(5), 590-599.
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242-262). London: Cambridge University Press.
Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Bruke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hirvela, A. (2001). Incorporating reading into EAP writing courses. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 330-346). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Irwin, J. W. (1991). Teaching Reading Comprehension Processes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Joe, S. G., & You, Y. L. (2006). A study of EFL writers’ performance of reading-to-write task. Languages, Literary Studies and International Studies: An International Journal, 3, 31-48.
Joe, S. G.., & Wu, S. R. (2007). An investigation of reading-to-write process of advanced EFL learners. The proceeding of 2007 international conference and workshop on TEFL & applied linguistics, 249-259, Taiwan.
Johns, A. (1993). Reading and writing tasks in English for academic purposes classes: Products, processes and resources. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: second language perspectives (pp. 9-32). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Kroll, B. (1993). Teaching writing is teaching reading: Training the new teacher of ESL composition. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki. (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 61-81). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Kucer, S. B. (1987). The cognitive base of reading and writing. In J. Squire (Ed.), The dynamics of language learning (pp. 27-51). Urbana, IL: National Conference in Research in English.
Langer, J. A. & Allington, R. (1992). Curriculum research in writing and reading. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 687-725). New York: Macmillan.
Langer, J. A. & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and Reading Relationships: Constructive Tasks. In Indrisano, R., & Squire, J. R. (Eds.), Perspectives on Writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 112-139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Lee, I. C. & You, Y. L. (2005). Comparing EFL experienced L1 and L2 writing processes. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Vol. 2, 133-145, Taiwan.
Leki, I. (1993). Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and writing. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: second language perspectives (pp. 9-32). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Mason, G., McDaniel, H., & Callaway, B. (1974). Relating reading and spelling, a comparison of methods. Elementary School Journal, 74, 381-386.
McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 226-247.
McGinley, W., & Tierney, R. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6, 243-269.
Moffett, J., and B. Wagner (1983). Student-centered language arts and reading, K-13: A handbook for teachers. 3d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mokhrari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002), Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Newkirk, T. (Ed.). (1986). Only connect: Uniting reading and writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
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 Cognition Instruction (pp. 15-51). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peng, T. L. (2001). Curriculum and instruction of second language writing. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 565-571, Taiwan.
Peterson, B. T. (Ed.). (1986). Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Petrosky, A. (1982). From story to essay: Reading and writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 19-39.
Quinn, K. (1995). Teaching reading and writing as modes of learning in college: A glance at the past; a view to the future. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 295-314.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Raphael, T. E., Kirschner, B. W., & Englert, C. S. (1988). Expository writing program: Making connections between reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 41, 790-795.
Reid, J. (1993). Historical perspectives on writing and reading in the ESL classroom. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: second language perspectives (pp. 33-60). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Rentel, V., & King, M. (1983). Present at the beginning. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamer, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), A research on writing, (pp. 139-176). New York: Longman.
Rubin, A., & Hansen, J. (1984). Reading and writing: How are the first two “R’s” related? (Center for the Study of Reading Education Report No. 51). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (1999a). The process of reading-to-write used by a skilled Spanish-as-a-foreign-language student: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 45-62.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Volume 2: Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shanahan, T. (1984). The nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466-477.
Shanahan, T. (1987). The shared knowledge of reading and writing. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 8, 93-102.
Shanahan, T., and Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of the oretical models of the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116-123.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171-200.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smagorinsky, P. (1992). How reading model essays affect writers. In J. Irwin & M. Doly (Eds.), Reading/writing connections (pp. 160-176). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL: Bridging the gaps. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (4), 703-725.
Spack, R. (1990). Guidelines: A cross-cultural reading/writing text. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 256-287.
Spivey, N., & King, J. (1989). Readers and writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7-26.
Squire, J. R. (1983). Composing and comprehending: Two sides of the same basic process. Language Arts, 60(5), 581-589.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60, 627-642.
Takala, S. (1984). Evaluation of students’ knowledge of English vocabulary in the Finnish comprehensive school. Published doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Tierney, R. J. (1992). Ongoing research and new directions. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: learning from research (pp. 246-260). Newark. DE: Internal Reading Association.
Tierney, R., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 568-580.
Tierney, R., Soter, A., O’Flavahan, J., & McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173.
Tobin, L. (1991). Reading students, reading ourselves: Revising the teacher’s role in the writing class. College English, 53, 333-348.
Tsang, W. K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 17, 210-233.
Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Writing and the teaching of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 600-606.
Yang, P. S., & Joe, S. G. (2005). Investigating EFL inexperienced writers’ Chinese and English writing processes. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, Vol. 2, 256-268, Taiwan.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2003). The differences between L2 mature and immature writers: A metacognitive approach. Proceeding of the 20th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 597-611, Taiwan.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2004). Integrating writing with reading in EFL writing classroom with metacognitive approach. In the selected papers of the thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 718-729). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2006). Integrating writing with reading in EFL writing classroom – A case study of TVES English-majored students. In Leung, Y. N. (Ed.), New aspects of English language teaching and learning (pp. 69-86). Taipei: Crane.
Yang, C. C. (2007). How EFL writers integrate the source information in a read-to-write task. Published Master’s Thesis, National Changhua University of Education.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 463-485.
Zhu, Wei. (2005). Source articles as scaffolds in reading to write: the case of a Chinese student writing in English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15, 129-152.