跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.220.44.148) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/14 12:13
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳若翎
研究生(外文):Chen, Jo-ling
論文名稱:大學生寫作過程之探究──寫作任務、寫作能力和寫作策略之間的交互影響
論文名稱(外文):An Exploration of EFL College Students’ Writing Process: The Interactions Among Task Type, Writing Proficiency, and Writing Strategy
指導教授:徐憶萍徐憶萍引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsu, Angela Yi-ping
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:155
中文關鍵詞:英文寫作寫作過程寫作策略寫作能力寫作任務
外文關鍵詞:English WritingWriting ProcessWriting StrategiesWriting ProficiencyWriting Task
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:730
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:178
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究針對台灣大學生的寫作過程及寫作策略進行調查,同時探討寫作任務、寫作能力和寫作策略之間的關聯性。此研究以五十四位國立大學學生為對象,依據他們的寫作能力分成高、中、低三組,並觀察各組在敘述、描寫和議論三種寫作任務上的策略使用情形。本研究的資料包含學生背景資料、學生寫作能力測驗結果、學生三種寫作任務的收集,以及學生在完成三種寫作任務後所填寫的寫作策略問卷。除了上述資料,本研究在學期中輔以每人三十分鐘的師生晤談,來深入了解學生的寫作歷程、寫作困難;在學期末,更隨機抽選十五名學生參與一小時的個別訪談,藉以探討他們在不同寫作任務中的策略運用。
本研究結果顯示,學生普遍於寫作前投入較少的心力在構思內容和組織架構上,因此他們時常在寫作時停下來思考和組織想法。也因為投入較少的心力在寫作前的準備,他們經常在寫作時運用寫作策略,諸如重讀之前寫過的內容,並在寫作後檢視內容、組織和文章的連貫性。其次,本研究發現大多數的學生在寫作過程中會頻繁地查閱雙語字典,這個現象可以歸因於學生高度關注本身的字彙量。此外,擁有不同寫作能力的學生在策略使用的頻率上並無明顯差異,即便如此,從策略多樣性的角度來看,仍可窺見不同寫作能力學生間的些微差別。
至於寫作任務對寫作策略的影響,本研究顯示,學生在撰寫敘述、描寫和議論三種寫作任務時,運用三種寫作策略的頻率有顯著不同。此三種策略分別為寫作前的構思、寫作過程中的間歇性停頓,以及自我修訂階段期間針對內容、組織和連貫性等的整體檢視。在敘述寫作任務中,學生運用構思策略的頻率遠勝於在描寫和議論寫作任務中,因為他們察覺到敘述經驗需要依照時間順序來安排事件的先後。然而,在描寫任務中,由於學生過度注意字彙的使用和字彙的多元性,使得他們在描寫任務中較少運用構思策略。至於議論寫作任務,由於學生認為此類任務的撰寫是較簡單且熟稔的,因此在撰寫前較少會先構思(與敘述文相比),在寫作過程中也較少運用間歇性停頓策略(與另外兩種任務相比),而傾向在完成草稿後作內容、連貫性、組織等的整體檢視。此寫作策略的使用不同於描寫文,因為描寫任務裡,學生傾向邊寫邊檢視內容、連貫性、和文章組織。以上結果顯示,不同的寫作任務會影響學生使用不同的寫作策略,但學生對內容、連貫性、和文章組織的關注力並不會隨著任務的改變而不同。此外,學生對寫作任務的熟稔度似乎與寫作任務的困難度有緊密的關係,而這也大大影響學生寫作策略的運用。
The aim of this study was to explore 54 EFL college students’ use of strategies in the prewriting, writing, and self-editing stages. In addition, this study compared strategies used by proficient writers, moderately proficient writers, and less proficient writers in narrative, descriptive, and argumentative writing tasks in order to investigate the effects of the three tasks on student’s writing, and to investigate students’ writing proficiency in relation to their strategy use. A writing proficiency test and a Background Information Survey were conducted in the beginning of the semester to examine students’ writing proficiency and to understand their writing difficulties and learning backgrounds. During the semester, students were required to turn in three writing tasks (i.e., narrative, descriptive, and argumentative writing tasks) and fill out Writing Strategy Questionnaires. The Writing Questionnaires, containing writing strategy statements and perceptions of their individual writing process, were given to the students each time after they submitted an essay. To clarify the answers obtained from the questionnaires and to further understand their writing problems, all of the students were invited to participate in 30-minute, individual, student-teacher conferences. At the end of the semester, fifteen students were randomly selected to participate in one-hour, individual interviews to unearth in-depth insights into their strategy use across different writing tasks.
The findings show that the 54 students generally focused limited attention on generating ideas and organizing content in the prewriting stage, and they tended to pause frequently to think about and organize ideas during the writing of the three tasks. Students’ lack of prewriting preparation may explain their high-frequency strategy use including rereading the written texts during writing and monitoring global writing aspects at the self-editing stage. Moreover, this study found students relied heavily on bilingual dictionaries due to numerous concerns over their limited vocabulary knowledge. As for the effect of writing proficiency on students’ strategy, this study demonstrated that students with different writing proficiency did not vary significantly in their frequency of strategy use. Despite the fact that the students of different proficiency levels did not differ in the frequency of strategy use, the variety of writing strategies used revealed slight differences between proficient writers and less proficient writers in their attention to writing aspects across the three writing tasks.
With regard to task effect on writing processes, the findings indicated that the strategies of organizing ideas, pausing during the writing stage, and monitoring global writing aspects varied greatly for the three writing tasks. Students tended to organize their ideas more in the narrative task than in the descriptive task due to their awareness of the chronological aspect needed in narrative writing and to their strong focus on using a variety of words instead of a focus on the organization in the descriptive writing. As students perceived the argumentative task to be an easier and more familiar task, they organized their ideas less than in the narrative writing, and they paused less often in the argumentative writing than in the other two tasks. Due to a lower frequency of pauses in the argumentative tasks, students tended to monitor content, coherence, and organization after finishing their argumentative drafts. This differed from the descriptive task where students spent more time monitoring during the composing stages rather than during the self-editing stage or after finishing their drafts. These results indicated that although different tasks influenced students’ strategy use in different ways, the amount of attention students paid to global writing aspects did not vary as the task changed. Moreover, task familiarity seemed to be a greater factor than task complexity in what and how students’ used strategies, as evidenced by the argumentative task (viewed by students as less challenging than the descriptive task) which is more complex but more familiar to this study’s students.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES……viii

LIST OF FIGURES……x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ……1
Motivation for the Study……2
Objectives of the Study……5
Definition of Terms……7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……10
L2 Writer’s Strategy Use……10
Factors that Influence L2 Writers’ Strategy Use……16

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS……24
Pilot Study…… 24
Participants…… 26
Materials and Instruments…… 31
Data Collection Procedures…… 37
Data Analysis…… 38

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……40
EFL Students’ Writing Strategy Use…… 40
Writing Strategy Use by Students with Different Levels of Writing Proficiency…… 53
Writing Strategy Use across Three Writing Tasks...… 58

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION……80
Findings of This Study…… 80
Pedagogical Implications for English Education in Taiwan...… 83
Limitations of This Study and Suggestions for Future Research…… 85

REFERENCES…… 87

APPENDIX A BACKGROUND INFORMATION SURVEY (FOR PILOT
STUDY) …… 94


APPENDIX B BACKGROUND INFORMATION SURVEY (FOR PILOT
STUDY, ENGLISH VERSION)……101

APPENDIX C WRITING PROFICIENCY TEST……108

APPENDIX D WRITING STRATEGY QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR PILOT STUDY) ……110

APPENDIX E WRITING STRATEGY QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR PILOT STUDY, ENGLISH VERSION) ……115

APPENDIX F BACKGROUND INFORMATION SURVEY (FOR MAIN STUDY) ……121

APPENDIX G BACKGROUND INFORMATION SURVEY (FOR MAIN STUDY, ENGLISH VERSION)…… 128

APPENDIX H WRITING STRATEGY QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR MAIN STUDY) ……135

APPENDIX I WRITING STRATEGY QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR MAIN STUDY, ENGLISH VERSION) ……141

APPENDIX J CODING LIST FOR ESSAYS……147

APPENDIX K CHINESE EXCERPTS……150



LIST OF TABLES

Table
1 Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ Background Information……27

2 Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ Learning Background……28

3 Students’ Self-Evaluated Writing Ability for Each Writing Aspect……30

4 Students’ Perceptions of the Importance of Each Writing Aspect……31

5 Methods Used to Improve English Writing……31

6 Fifty-Four Students’ Pretests Scores……33

7 Descriptive Statistics of Writing Strategy Use across Different Writing Task……41

8 Descriptive Statistics of the Strategy of Using Dictionaries……46

9 Descriptive Statistics of the Strategy of Rereading……51

10 Descriptive Statistics of the Strategy of Monitoring Global Writing Aspects......52

11 Main Effects and Interaction Effects of Writing Proficiency on
Strategy Use within Writing Tasks……54

12 Descriptive Statistics of High-Frequency Strategies by Students with
Different Writing Proficiency……56

13 Main Effects and Interaction Effects of Writing Tasks on Strategy Use……59

14 Simple Main Effects of the Three Tasks and of Strategy Use within Each Task…...60

15 Post Hoc Analysis (LSD) on Strategies of Organizing Ideas, Pausing during Writing, Monitoring Global Writing Aspects……61
16 Post Hoc Analysis (LSD) on the Strategy of Organizing Ideas in Descriptive Writing……64

17 Main Effects and Interaction Effects of Courses on Strategy Use in Narrative Task……67

18 Main Effects and Interaction Effects of Courses on Strategy Use in Descriptive Task……68

19 Main Effects and Interaction Effects of Courses on Strategy Use in Argumentative Task……68

20 Simple Main Effects of the Three Courses on Strategy Use within Descriptive Task……69

21 Post Hoc Analysis (LSD) on Strategies of Searching for Ideas and Pausing during Writing……69

22 Post Hoc Analysis (LSD) on the Strategy of Organizing Ideas in Argumentative Writing……72

23 Post Hoc Analysis (LSD) on the Strategy of Rereading in Narrative Writing……74

24 Post Hoc Analysis (LSD) on the Strategy of Pausing during Writing in Argumentative Writing……76



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1 Frequency of Strategy Use in Different Writing Task……46

2 Frequency of Significant Strategies across the Three Writing Tasks……61



Bachman, L. F. (2004). Analyzing test tasks. Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment (pp. 119-152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baroudy, I. (2008). Process writing: Successful and unsuccessful Writers; Discovering writing behaviours. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 43-63.
Beare, S. (2000). Differences in content generating and planning processes of adult L1 and L2 proficient writers. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Ottawa, Ottawa.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205-241.
Chen, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2010a). Beyond the writing process: The role of writing strategy, writing task, and writing proficiency. The 26th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 410-427). Taipei: Crane.
Chen, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2010b). Recursive writing: An in-depth study of EFL college student writers. The Proceedings of 2010 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 112-119). Taipei: Crane.
Chen, Y. M. (2007). Exploring the EFL experienced writers’ writing process, problems, and strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Yunlin, Taiwan.
Chien, S. C. (2007). The role of writing strategy use in relation to Chinese EFL students’ achievement in English writing: A cognitive approach. Cambridge Institute of Language Research (pp. 25-31). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Ciou, W. F. (2008). Behaviors and Attitudes Toward English Reading, English Writing, Writer’s Block in English, and English Writing Apprehension—A Case Study of EFL Student Writers in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1-23.
Ellis, R., & Fangyuan, Y. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84.
ETS. (2006). The Official Guide to the New TOEFL iBT. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Feng, H. P. (1995). A close look at the writing strategies through a questionnaire and group interviews. Proceedings of ROC English Composition Teaching Conference, 281-304.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Fong, B. (2008). A survey of senior middle school students’ metacognition in EFL writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangxi Normal University, Guangxi, China.
Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In I. T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On Second Language Writing (pp. 39 - 57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Hsu, A. Y. (2008a). Researching the complex context of plagiarism: The triangularity of patchwriting, paraphrasing, and plagiarizing. In S. Kao & C. Hsieh (Eds.), Languages across cultures: Language learning and teaching (pp. 105-129). Tainan: National Cheng Kung University.
Hsu, A. Y. (2008b). Teaching and researching writing: Focus on writers. Selected Papers from the Seventeenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 118-129.
Hu, G., & Chen, B. (2007). A protocol-based study of university-level Chinese EFL learners’ writing strategies. English Australia Journal, 23(2), 37-55.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kao, C. W. (2007). Proficient and less proficient learners’ strategies in business writing classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference on English Education. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from http://www.usc.edu.tw/college/afl/data/%E9%AB%98%E5%8D%83%E6%96%87%20(Proficient%20and%20Less%20Proficient%20Learners%20%20Strategies%20in%20Business%20Writing%20Classroom).pdf
Kao, C. W. (2008). Learning strategy use and persuasive writing performance: A study on commercial college students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, Pingtung, Taiwan.
Khaldieh, S. A. (2000). Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. less-proficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 522-534.
Lee, I. C., & You, Y. L. (2005). Comparing EFL experienced writers’ L1 and L2 writing processes. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 133-143.
Lee, Y. H., & You, Y. L. (2005). Exploring EFL writers’ self-regulation during composing process. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 237-249.
Leki, I. (1992). L2 composing: Strategy and perceptions. Understanding ESL Writers : A Guide for Teachers (pp. 76-87). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English. New York: Routledge.
Liao, Y. F. (2005). A case study of university freshmen’s compare/contrast writing process strategies and genre-specific strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Lin, Y. T., & You, Y. L. (2006). Investigating experienced and less experienced EFL writers’ metacognitive knowledge of English writing. Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 490-502.
Liu, W., & Lu, Y. (2008). Research on EFL writing strategy using SRP: An empirical study in DUT. Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 51-83.
Manchon, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 57(4), 549-593.
Manchon, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 13-35.
Min, H. T. (2009). A principled eclectic approach to teaching EFL writing in Taiwan. Bulletin of Educational Research, 55(1), 63-95.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R., Cho, Y., & Leung, S. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, 42(1), 1-47.
Petric, B., & Czarl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31(2), 187-215.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 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.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27.
Roca de Larios, J., Manchon, R., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30-47.
Roca de Larios, J., Marin, J., & Murphy, L. (2001). A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2 writing. Language Learning, 51(3), 497-538.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Shaw, S. D., & Weir, C. J. (2007). Cognitive validity. Examining Writing: Research and Practice in Assessing Second Language Writing (pp. 34-62). Cambridge: 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), 657-677.
Tsai, C. H. L. (2004). Investigating the relationships between ESL writers’ strategy use and their second language writing ability. Unpublished Ph.D., Columbia University Teachers College, New York.
Tsai, H. M. (2009). Examining metacognitive performance between skilled and unskilled writers in an integrated EFL writing class. The 26th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 678-689). Taipei: Crane.
van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235-250.
Victori, M. (1995). EFL writing knowledge and strategies: An integrative study. Unpublished Ph.D., Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537-555.
Wang, E. (2008). Argumentative writing strategies and writing process strategies used by EFL college freshmen and juniors: A case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Wang, J. (2004). An investigation of the writing processes of Chinese EFL learners: Subprocesses, strategies and the role of the mother tongue. Unpublished Ph.D., The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 347-375.
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
Wolfersberger, M. (2003). L1 to L2 writing process and strategy transfer: A look at lower proficiency writers. TESL-EJ, 7. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a6.html
Wong, A. T. Y. (2005). Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System, 33(1), 29-47.
Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7-28.
Wu, Y. W., & Chen, M. C. (2007). Writing strategies and writing difficulties among college students of differing English proficiency. Proceedings of 24th ROC-TEFL, 176-189.
Yang, P. H., & Joe, S. G. (2005). Investigating EFL inexperienced writers’ Chinese and English writing process. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 256-268.
Yen, T. Y. (2006). Writing anxiety and writing strategy use among Taiwanese English majors. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
You, Y. L. (2006). The cognitive and metacognitive strategies NNES writers performed when composing in L1 and L2. On and off work: Festschrift in honor of Professor Chin-chuan Cheng on his 70th birthday (pp. 237-264). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.
Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73-99.


連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top