(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/15 17:44
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:鐘筱嵐
研究生(外文):Hsiao-lan Chung
論文名稱:增強英語為第二外國語學生的寫作策略使用:後設認知教學觀
論文名稱(外文):Enhancing EFL Writers’ Strategies in Writing: A Metacognitive Approach
指導教授:王子富王子富引用關係游毓玲游毓玲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tsu-fu WangYu-ling You
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:應用外語系碩士班
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:97
語文別:英文
論文頁數:130
中文關鍵詞:明確的教學後設認知寫作過程寫作策略
外文關鍵詞:metacognitionwriting processexplicit instructionwriting strategies
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:243
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討上完密集的寫作課程之後,以英語為外國語的學生的策略使用。後設認知通常被簡單定義為「思考關於思考的事」,指的是更高階的思考,牽涉著主動控制寫作時的認知過程。一般相信,會強調思考技巧和過程發展的授課,是一個增強學習的方式。也就是說訓練學生變得更會運用策略、更能信賴自己、更有彈性、以及更有寫作力(Scheid, 1993)。在台灣,很少有研究檢視以後設認知教學觀來增強學生寫作策略使用的教學成效。因此,本研究首先要設計寫作教學活動,來增強學生對寫作策略的應用,以一系列的活動來增強他們的寫作成果。此教學持續了12週,每週2小時。12位研究對象中的每一位都在此12週教學前和教學後各寫了一篇作文。此外,整個教學前和後各進行了一次個別的訪談。研究對象的寫作範本和訪談資料之分析指出,在整個教學活動結束之後,他們的寫作過程和成品有明顯的進步。然而就學生的寫作策略使用來說,他們需要更長時間的教學來延長學習效果。
This study intends to investigate EFL writers’ strategy use after they received the ‘Intensive Writing Instruction.’ Metacognition is often simply defined as ‘thinking about thinking,’ which refers to higher order thinking that involves active control over the cognitive process engaged in learning. It is believed that instructions which emphasize the development of thinking skills and processes would be a means to enhance learning; i.e. training all students to become more strategic, self-reliant, flexible and productive (Scheid, 1993). In Taiwan, there is limited number of studies examining the effects of instruction that aims to enhance students writing strategy use in a metacognitive approach. This study, hence, intends to first design writing activities which enhance their application of writing strategies by means of a series of activities that improve their writing product. This instruction lasted for 12 weeks, 2 hours per week. One pre-instruction writing sample and one post-instruction sample were collected from each of the 12 subjects. Moreover, individual interview was conducted for each subject before and after the instruction. Analysis of their writing samples and interview data indicates that their writing process and products have great improvements after the instruction. However, students need longer period of instructions to prolong the benefits from their writing strategy use.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………….iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………….v
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………ix

CHPATER ONE INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..1
Background of the Study …………………………………………………………...1
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………………..6
Research Questions ………………………………………………………………...7
Definitions of Terms ………………………………………………………………..7
Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………..9

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………..11
Models of the Writing Process ……..……………………………………………..11
Flower and Hayes’ Writing Model ……………………………………………12
Scardamalia and Bereiter’s Writing Model …………………………………...15
Metacognition and Learning ……………………………………………………...20
Flavell’s Notion of Metacognition ……………………………………………20
Baker and Brown’s Notion of Metacognition ………………………………..23
Metacognition in Language Learning ………………………………………..24
Writing Instructions ………………………………………………………………28
Studies of English Writing Instruction ……………………………………….28
Explicit Instruction ……………………………………………………………29
English Writing Instruction in Taiwan ………………………………………..30
Writing Strategies …………………………………………………………………31

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY…………………………………………….33
Subjects ………………………………………………………………………….. 33
Instruments ………………………………………………………………………. 34
Tests …………………………………………………………………………...34
Pretest ……...……………………………………………………………… 35
Posttest …...……………………………………………………………….. 35
Interview …………………………………………………………………...… 35
The Description of the Experiment ……………………………………………….37

CHAPTER FOUR RESUTLS……………………………………………………….45
The Results of the Two Tests …………………………………………………….. 46
Analysis of the Writing Product …………..………………………………………47
Analysis of the Pre-Interview Data ……………………………………………….62
Analysis of the Post-Interview Data ………………………………………………71

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION……………………………81
Summary of The Major Findings …………………………………………….. …81
Discussion of the Research Findings …………………………………………….84
Effects of Writing Instruction on Strategy Use ………………………………85
Effects of the Use of the Writing Strategy ……………………………………88
Effects of the Awareness in Strategy Use …………………………………….73
Applicability to Conduct Instructions with Emphasis on Strategy Use in EFL
Classrooom………………………………………………………………..91
Pedagogical Implications …………………………………………………………92
Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………….98
Suggestions for Future Studies ……………………………………………………99
Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………...101

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………..102

APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………..112
Appendix I Pre-Interview Questions ……………………………………………112
Appendix II Post-Interview Questions …………………………………………..114
Appendix III Instruction Handouts ………………………………………………116


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Description of the Course……………………………………………… 38
Table 3.2 Do’s the Don’ts List …………………………………………………….42
Table 4.1 Twelve Subjects’ pre- and posttest scores in writing……………………47
Table 4.2 The analyses of each subject’s writing product in the pretest …………..48
Table 4.3 The analyses of each subject’s writing product in the posttest ………….55
Table 4.4 The strategies the subjects adopt during composing before the instruction
…………………………………………………………………………….64
Table 4.5 The strategies the subjects adopt during composing after the instruction
…………………………………………………………………………….72
REFERENCES
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review 1 (1), 3-38.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Block, E. L. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 463-494
Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: the development of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 501-526). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding – Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition (pp. 65-116). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97-112.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-648.
Chen, D. W. (2000). Understanding the Two Sources of EFL Writing Performance as the Means to Improve EFL Writing Instruction. In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 197-207). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Chen, D. W. (2001). The identity crisis of EFL composition instruction in Taiwan. In the Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (pp41 – 58). Taipei: Crane
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 Thesis at National Yunlin University of Science & Technology.
Chen, H. C. (2001). Diagnosis of difficulties in English writing and suggested remedial instructional strategies. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching. (pp. 197-207). Taipei: Crane.
Chen, Y. M. (1998). 國內英文作文教學之回顧與展望。Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on the Application of English Teaching, 223-233. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chi, C. H. (2004). An Analysis of Text Structures Employed by EFL Beginning Writers. Unpublished Master Thesis at National Yunlin University of Science and Technology.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp.205-242). Newark, ED: International Reading Association
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of 12th graders. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 058205.
Flavell, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. (pp.231-235). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrance Brlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J.H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding – Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. New Jerey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229 – 44.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gerring, S. S. (1990). Differences in metacognitive knowledge and behavior between successful and unsuccessful college writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Gourgey, A. F. (2001). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Journal not defined,26, 81-96.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996a). Towards a theory of writing. Theory and Practice of Writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman. Pp. 202-236.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996b). Writing process research and recent extensions. Theory and Practice of Writing: An applied linguistic perspective (pp. 113-146). New York: Longman
Harris, K. R. & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated Strategy Development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 277-309). New York: Academic Press.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ metacognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp.33-68). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing: theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. (pp. 1 –27). NJ: L. Erlbaum
Herrmann, B. A. (1988). Two approaches for helping poor readers become more strategic. The Reading Teacher, 42 (1), 24-28.
Jacob, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychology, 22, (3&4), 255-278.
Kaplan, R. (1967). Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 10-16
Kasper, L. F. (1997, Novermber). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ. Retrieved July 4, 2001, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej09/al.html
Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Eds.), Second Language Writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 37 – 56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for Teaching an ESL/EFL Writing Course. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ED.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp.219-231). Heinle & Heinle.
Lee, I. C. (2005) Comparing EFL Mature Writers’ L1 and L2 Writing Process. Unpublished Master Thesis at National Yunlin University of Science & Technology.
Lee,Y. H. (2005) Exploring EFL Writers’ Self-regulation during Composing Process. Unpublished Master Thesis at National Yunlin University of Science & Technology.
Leki, I. (1992). L2 composing: strategies and perceptions. Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook. Pp. 66-87.
Liu, C. H. (1999). Identifying the Writing Processes a College Student Has to Undergo: The Generative Model. In the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp.303-312). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In B. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 2 (pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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: Erlbaum.
Perl, S. (1978). Fiver writers writing: case studies of the composing processes of unskilled college writers. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, New York University, New York.
Polio, C. (2003). Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how. In B. Kroll (Eds.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing (pp. 242 – 262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil. P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of eading research, 3, 545-563, Magwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 407 – 430.
Sawyer, T.M. (1977). Why speech will not totally replace writing. College Composition and Communication, 28 (1), 43-48.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Schraw, G, & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Review. 7 351-371.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Eds.), Second Language Writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, pp. 378-388.
Taylor, B. (1976). Teaching composition to low level ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 309 – 313.
Ur, P. (1999). Young ESL writers’ responses to peer and teacher comments in writing. The Proceedings of the eighth international symposium on English teaching, pp. 95-109. Taipei: Crane
You, Y. L. (2002). Taiwanese college students’ metacognitive awareness of writing in English. In the Proceedings of the nineteenth Conference of English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigating the Metacognitive Awareness and Strategies of English-majored University Student Writers. In The Selected Papers of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 107 – 117). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002a). Skilled Writers’ Metacognitive Conditional Knowledge and Self-Regulation. In The Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, (pp. 515 – 527). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2002b). A Metacognitive Approach to the Problem of In coherence in EFL Learners’ Writing. In The Selected Papers of the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 599 – 610). Taipei: Crane.
You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2003). How to teach EFL writing metacognitively. In The Selected Papaers of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 626-637). Taipei: Crane.
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27. 537-555.
Zamel, V. (1980). Re-evaluating sentence-combining practice. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 81–90.
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.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊