近年來台灣的研究生人數急遽增加，研究生的英文寫作也相對地日趨重要。雖然近幾年來，已有越來越多的研究報告探討學術論文寫作中的後設言談，然而，對於後設言談在學術英語課程中的教學效能卻少有研究。
此研究針對台灣研究生對於論說文的知識以及寫作行為進行調查，並評估後設言談教學在學術英語課程中的可行性及接受度。研究對象為修讀基礎論文寫作課程的四十位台灣某國立大學博士生。資料的蒐集包含了不同的問卷調查，以便了解學生的論文寫作經驗與知識，以及對於後設言談學習的反應與感受。另外，對於學生在論說文中所使用的人際後設言談(interpersonal metadiscourse)，也進行分析與探討，以揭示潛在的修辭結構；而後續的訪談則旨於引導學生提供更多個別的回應及說明。
本研究結果顯示在傳統教學法下，大多數的博士生雖然對於自身的閱讀能力有信心，但對於學術上的英文寫作程度不甚滿意。因此，台灣博士生的自我學習方法為藉由閱讀學術文章來獲得初步的學術寫作知識。儘管這樣的方式並不完善且有待改正，學生們豐富的閱讀經驗彌補了他們有限的寫作能力，並且增進學習後設言談的效率。然而，由於缺乏正規的後設言談教學，大多數的學生因為使用頻率以及自覺性的差異，指出使用文本後設言談(Textual metadiscourse)與人際後設言談(interpersonal metadiscourse)時的困難。另一方面，台灣博士生在論說文寫作中，人際後設言談的使用率，僅略少於教科書中使用的範例。此一現象反映了學生們的寫作表現已符合學術文體的要求體裁。
總而言之，大多數的學生對此學習過程都表達了正面的態度，亦肯定了學術英語課程中，後設言談教學的可行性與接受度。此外，學生們的回應與後設言談使用表現，不僅擴展我們對學生背景知識的理解，也對於教學方法設計以及學習內容的優先順序排定，提供了寶貴的資訊。

In an EFL context like Taiwan, academic English writing demands considerable attention to match the rapidly increasing numbers of graduate students in recent years. There has been more and more research concerning academic writing on metadiscourse lately, which revealed Taiwanese student writers’ immature writing skills, yet few of them discussed the teaching and learning efficacy of metadiscourse in EAP courses.
To gauge the feasibility and acceptability of metadiscourse instruction in EAP courses, this study explored Taiwanese graduate students’ knowledge and performance in metadiscourse use in argumentation. Participants involved are 40 doctoral students registered in basic academic writing courses at a national university in northern Taiwan. Data collected included different questionnaires and surveys on subjects’ previous writing experiences, knowledge of academic writing, perceived difficulties in and reaction to metadiscourse learning. In addition, students’ use of interpersonal metadiscourse in argumentation was coded and analyzed to disclose the potential rhetorical patterns. Moreover, follow-up interviews were also conducted to elicit more and clarify participants’ individual responses based on questionnaires.
The findings showed that, because of traditional education focus, most doctoral students are confident of their reading ability, yet unsatisfied with their writing proficiency for academic purposes. Nevertheless, relying heavily upon reading journal articles as the major media of self-learning, Taiwanese doctoral students have acquired an initial understanding of academic writing, although their academic knowledge remains incomplete and deficient. Learners’ abundant reading experiences complement their limited writing proficiency, and facilitate metadiscourse learning process. However, without formal instruction in metadiscourse, most students revealed that unequal awareness and frequency caused different difficulties between textual and interpersonal metadiscourse learning. In writing argumentation, Taiwanese doctoral students used slightly fewer interpersonal markers than in textbooks, the authoritative models of academic writing, representing the preliminary conformity of learners’ writing behaviors with the expected academic genre. In conclusion, most students expressed positive attitudes toward the learning process, confirming the acceptability and feasibility of metadiscourse instruction in EAP courses. Moreover, participants’ responses and metadiscourse use in their writing performance not only expanded our understanding of students’ background knowledge, but also assisted in prioritizing teaching techniques and learning focuses.

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the result section of sociology articles. English for
Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in Ph.D. thesis. English for Specific
Purposes, 18, S41-S56.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory
study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1).
Cheng, X. & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student
writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181.
Chiang, S. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at
the early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31, 471-484.
Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T. M., & Swann, J. (2003).
Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical problems. English for
Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Dudley-Evans, T (1994) Genre Analysis, An Approach to Text in ESP. ‘In Coulthard, M (ed),
Advances in Written Text Analysis (p.219-228). London: Routledge.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: reference and function. English for
Specific Purposes, 23, 45-66.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. NY: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hewings, M. & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that…”: a comparative study of
anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21,
367-383.
Hopkins, A. & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion
sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-121.
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: academic tasks for the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.
Huang, H. T. & Liou, H. C. (2005). An action research study of an academic English
writing course for graduate students in Taiwan: students’ needs, perception, and register features in the writing. English Teaching & Learning, 30(2), 45-73.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English
for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London:
Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles.
English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied
Linguitics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English for Specific
Purposes, 21, 385-395.
Intaraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL
essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
Ivanic, R. & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: voice as self-representation in L2 writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3-33.
Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: some definitions and suggestions for
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (2). 247-265.
Johns, A. M. (1993). Written argumentation for real audiences: suggestions for teaching
research and classroom practice. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 75-90.
Jun, L. (2005). Understanding models in L2 writing. Proceeding of the Fourteenth
International Symposium on English Teaching, 91-102. Taipei: Crane.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English
for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal
articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121-138.
Kuo, C. H. (2000). Politeness strategies in scientific journal articles. Proceeding of Ninth
International Symposium on English Teaching, 401-410. Taipei: Crane.
Lau, H. H. (1999a). 台灣研究所學生所寫英文學術期刊論文中的謹慎語。行政院國科會
專題計畫。NSC 88-2411-H-007-018。
Lau, H. H. (1999b). 英文學術期刊論文中的解釋過程。Proceedings of the 16th
Conference on English Teaching and Learning in R.O.C., 375-384.
Lau, H. H. (2000a). 台灣研究生所寫英文學術論文「討論」部份的訊息結構。行
政院國科會專題計畫。NSC 89-2411-H-007-006。
Lau, H. H. (2000b).學術期刊論文中的自我評估：貢獻論述。Selected Papers from
the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching, 668-678.
Lau, H. H. (2001). 英文學術期刊的情態表達：台灣博士生的「謹言慎行」。
Proceedings of the 18th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in R.O.C.,
456-467。
Lau, H. H. (2002). 台灣博士生英文期刊論文中的實驗描述。行政院國科會專題
計畫。NSC 90-2411-H-007-021。
Lau, H. H.,(2003a). 章類分析與學術英文教學：台灣博士生的摘要改進問題。
English Teaching & Learning, 27(4), 63-77.
Lau, H. H. (2003b). Citational practices in Methodology sections of papers on applied
linguistics and life science. Proceeding of 2003 International Conference and Workshop on Teaching English as Foreign Language and Applied Linguistics, 217-223.
Lau, H. H. (2003c). Signals of specification in papers on applied linguistics. Selected
Papers from the Twelfth International Symposium on English Teaching, 452-458.
Lau, H. H. (2003d). 學術英文分析：應用語言學論文中的態度成分。行政院國科會專題
計畫。NSC 91-2411-H-007-026。
Lau, H. H. (2003e). Emphatic markers in Discussion sections of papers on applied linguistics
and life science. The Fourth Annual Western International Conference. Retrieved July
15 2005, from http://english.nccu.edu.tw/new/academic/doc/Paper/劉賢軒-內文.pdf
Lau, H. H. (2004a). Interaction markers used by Taiwanese Ph.D. students of physics.
Selected Papers from the Thirteen Interactional Symposium and Book Fair on
English Teaching, 158-165.
Lau, H. H. (2004b). The structure of academic journal abstract written by Taiwanese Ph.D.
students. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 1(1), 1-25.
Lau, H. H. (2005). ‘Important’ used as an interaction marker in civil engineering journal
articles. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching,
228-236. Taipei: Crane.
Leki, I. (2005). The challenges of teaching EFL writing. Proceeding of the Fourteenth
International Symposium on English Teaching, 79-90. Taipei: Crane.
Lorenz, G. (1999). Learning to cohere: causal links in native vs. non-native argumentative
writing. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written
discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (55-75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronoun in the
different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second language Writing, 14, 174-190.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts.
English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
McDonough, J. & Hyland, K. (2005). Perspectives on EAP: an interview with Ken Hyland.
ELT Journal, 59(1), 57-64.
Ministry of Education. (March, 2005). General Guidelines of Grade 1-9 Curriculum of
Elementary and Junior High School Education. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from
http://www.fhjh.tp.edu.tw/eng_www/G1-9%20curriculum.doc
Newman, M., Trenchs-Parera, M. & Pujol, M. (2003). Core academic literacy principles
versus culture-specific practices: a multi-case study of academic achievement. English
for Specific Purposes, 22, 45-71.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Simpson, J. M. (2000). Topic structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and
Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293-309.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions
in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141-156.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific
Purposes, 1(14), 1-18.
Tang, R. & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ identity: exploring writer identity in student academic
writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23-S39.
The Language Training and Testing. (2004). Comparison of domestic English proficiency test.
Retrieved July, 2005, from http://intra.tpml.edu.tw/study/upload/downloads/table2.pdf
The Language Training and Testing. (2005). General English proficiency test:
High-intermediate level test, 3, p. 34.
Todd, R. W., Thienpermpool, P. & Keyuravong, S. (2004). Measuring the coherence of
writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing writing, 9, 85-104.
Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Spanish-English economics
texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
Wyrick. J. (2002). Steps to writing well (8th Ed.) Singapore: Thomson Learning.