使用線上學術英文教材對研究生寫作之研究: 以應用語言學門論文之前言為例

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	蔡咏秋 Yung-Chru Tsai
論文名稱：	使用線上學術英文教材對研究生寫作之研究: 以應用語言學門論文之前言為例 Effects of Online Academic English Materials on Graduate Students' Writing: Introductions in Research Articles of the Applied Linguistic Disciplines
指導教授：	劉顯親 Hsien-Chin Liou
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2006
畢業學年度：	94
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	135
中文關鍵詞：	學術英文寫作、前言、應用語文學門
外文關鍵詞：	Academic English writing, Research article introduction, Applied linguistics
相關次數：	點閱：2 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

有鑒於期刊論文前言獨特的文類特性，前言在學術研究領域已被篇章分析學者廣泛地研究與探討。然而將其篇章分析的結果與實際教學做連結尚嫌不足，因此，本研究旨在將學術期刊前言語料庫分析之結果發展成線上教材內容，並探討一項英文線上論文寫作教材對學生的前言寫作之教學成效。
我們收集了60篇應用語言學學術期刊前言進行言步分析，藉由
電腦程式的協助，我們也進行了語料分析。語料分析的內容包括常見的搭配詞組和常使用的報告動詞。藉由人工分析的方式以提高語料分析結果的正確性進而研發線上平台之教材內容。教材內容主要包括前言架構及言步之介紹、前言常用的搭配詞組之介紹，此外，我們將一線上同儕寫作與編輯平台(POWER)和一學術英文語料庫查詢程(CARE)併入教學活動設計，以期提高教學的成效。6位英語教學碩士班之研究生參與教材成效之評量。我們收集了學生教學前和教學後所寫的前言進行評量和文本分析。分析內容主要包括文章之言步架構、話語標記語之使用及引證寫作方式。此外，學生填寫一份問卷以協助了解學生對教材內容設計的觀感。
結果顯示學生之前言寫作技巧有明顯的進步，其中以言步架
構和話語標記語為最顯著。學生不但在教學後使用了必要的言步單位，並且在文中運用了多樣的話語標記語。而在文字的使用上，我們發現學生所使用的話語標記語，相較於教學前所寫的前言更貼近學術寫作的風格。然而，學生在引證寫作技巧上並沒有明顯的增進。問卷的結果顯示學生對於線上教材的設計持有相當正面的評價，除了指出言步單元的教學寫作有十足的幫助外，也表示當需要的時候將會再度造訪此線上教學平台。除此之外，學生表示語料索引查詢對言步單位的學習有幫助。
研究結果顯示，本實驗之線上教學不但能提升學生前言文類的寫作技巧能力，而且也展示了連接文本分析語教材研發的可能性。本文對學術寫作教學提供兩點具體的建議。我們建議以學術教學為目的的課程，在教學內容的設計上能依據語料分析的結果做延伸。在教學上，我們鼓勵學生利用線上索引工具來做學習，藉由觀察語料發掘文類的微妙語言運用。最後本實驗提出了未來研究的發展方向，包括應包含更多的受試者和對照組，並且擴充語料的數量以利更精準的分析。

The genre of research article introductions has been a long-term interest of text analysts in the academic research setting (e.g., Swales, 1990). Most of the past studies, however, put emphasis on analysis, while few have applied the results to instructional material development. The present study aimed to examine the effects of online instruction on the research article introductions by linking the results of text analyses of an introduction corpus with pedagogical practice.
A corpus of 60 article introductions in the applied linguistics discipline was compiled for move analysis and corpus analysis. The move analysis was conducted with codes tagged manually to the texts in the corpus, while corpus analysis of important register features including lexical bundles, collocations, and reporting verbs was conducted semi-automatically. The instructional materials were constructed based on the analyzed results. An online peer editing platform (POWER) and a concordancer (CARE) with authentic examples from the academic corpus were added to enhance the course delivery. Six graduate students in the English teaching field were involved in the assessment phase of the project. Students’ writing samples collected before and after the instructional period were collected for rating and text analysis. The major concerns in assessment and text analysis were move structures, linguistic feature of metadiscourse markers, and the source writing. In addition, learners’ perceptions toward the usefulness of the online instruction, including the design of instructional materials, overall design, and the learning tools used, were elicited from an evaluation questionnaire.
The results of the evaluation and text analysis showed that the academic writing skill of the learners for introduction writing improved from the pre-course to the post-course stage. The move organization of students’ writing was improved with an increased use of obligatory moves, the metadiscourse markers were more productive in terms of the types of items in use, and the choice of words seemed to be more attuned to the style of academic writing. Source writing was considered the dimension with least progress in that the surface forms and the evaluative functions of citations used by the learners were discrepant from the norms of the experienced writers (Hyland, 2000). The results of the evaluation questionnaire pointed out that learners generally hold a positive attitude toward the online course instruction. Among the online materials developed, the learners indicated the instruction on move structures was most useful to their writing, and that they were willing to revisit the online learning materials for guidance in the future. Further, the experience of concordancing learning was beneficial to their learning of moves in terms of their functional usages and linguistic realizations.
The results of the present study not only showed that the online instruction on the introduction of RA genre could foster learners’ skills of academic writing, but also demonstrated the possible link between corpus analysis and pedagogical practice. It is suggested that course designers given for academic purposes could conduct corpus analysis with texts of the target genre for the development of instructional materials; in practice, we encourage students to explore the nature of the target genre with concordancing learning. With regard to the directions for future research, it is suggested that an inclusion of more subjects with a control group, and a larger sample size of corpus data is needed for more rigorous analyses.

中文摘要……………………………………………………………………………….i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….ii
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………...iv
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………...1

Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………….4
2.1 Move analysis in RA introductions………………………………………………..4
2.2 Relevant studies on RA introductions……………………………………………..9
   2.2.1 The rhetorical structure of RA introductions………………………………...9
   2.2.2 Analyses facilitated by computer programs………………………………..12
2.3 Citations research and teaching…………………………………………………..17
   2.3.1 Citation practice in different disciplines and learning contexts……………17
2.3.2 Citation teaching for English academic purposes………………………….22
2.4 Metadiscourse…………………………………………………………………….25
2.4.1 The taxonomy of metadiscourse……………………………………………25
2.4.2 Metadiscourse use in NNS writers’ academic writing……………………..29
2.5 Review of classroom-based teaching on RA introductions………………………33
2.6 Summary of findings……………………………………………………………..39

Chapter 3: Corpus Analysis and Results…………………………………………..41
3.1 The Corpus……………………………………………………………………….41
3.2 Coding scheme…………………………………………………………………...42
3.3 Approaches to text analysis………………………………………………………44
3.3.1 Genre analysis of moves…………………………………………………...44
3.3.2 Corpus analysis of text features…………………………………………….46
3.3. Findings and results……………………………………………………………...47
3.3.1 Results of computer analysis of moves…………………………………….47
3.3.2 Results of computer analysis of move patterns…………………………….49
3.3.3 Observed findings and conclusions on move sequences…………………...51
3.3.4 Results of computer analyses of phraseology and collocation……………..54
3.3.5 Results of computer analyses of reporting verbs…………………………...57
3.4 Discussion of findings and implications…………………………………………59

Chapter 4: Development and Assessment of Online Materials…………………..62
4.1 The process genre approach as the theoretical principle for academic writing…..62
4.2 Review of some existing EAP computer resources………………………………64
4.3 Overall design……………………………………………………………………71
4.4 Participants……………………………………………………………………….71
4.5 Instruments……………………………………………………………………….72
4.6 Instructional design……….……………………………………………………...72
4.6.1 The learning platform—MOODLE………………………………………...73
4.6.2 The concordancing tool—CARE…………………………………………...75
4.6.3 The writing and editing platform—POWER……………………………….77
4.6.4 Material development………………………………………………………80
4.7 Data collection……………………………………………………………………85
4.8 Outline of the course……………………………………………………………..86
4.9 Data analysis……………………………………………………………………..86
4.10 Results of rating………………………………………………………………...87
4.11 Results of text analysis………………………………………………………….90
4.11.1 Move analysis of students’ introduction writing………………………...90
4.11.2 Metadiscourse features in the introduction writing……………………...94
4.11.3 Citations in the introduction writing……………………………………..97
4.12 Results of the evaluation questionnaire………………………………………..102

Chapter 5: Conclusion…………………………………………………………….108
5.1 Overview………………………………………………………………………..108
5.2 Limitations………………………………………………………………………110
5.3 Future research………………………………………………………………….110
5.4 Implications……………………………………………………………………..111

References………………………………………………………………………….113
Appendices
A.    Corpus of the Journal Paper Introductions……………………………………...117
B.    Extracted Examples of Three-Word and Four-Word Lexical Bundles………….122
C.    Extracted Examples of VN Collocations………………………………………..125
D.    Reporting Verbs and the Total Frequency in Each Move Counts………………128
E.    Metadiscourse Markers…………………………………………………………129
F.  Analytical Scale for the Introduction Writing Task…………………………….130
G.  The Presentation of the Moves in the Individual Writers’ Writing…………….135

List of Tables
Table 2.1 The CARS Model for Article Introductions………………………………. .5
Table 2.2 The Revised CARS Model for Article Introductions…………………….....7
Table 2.3 Classfication of Evaluative Category Verbs in AL Research Corpus……...20
Table 2.4 Functions of Metadiscourse in Academic Texts…………………………...27
Table 2.5 Summary of Metadiscourse Studies and Their Pedagogical Implications...33
Table 2.6 Review of EAP Courses on RA Writing Instruction………………………39
Table 3.1 Corpus of Journal Articles…………………………………………………42
Table 3.2 Comparison of Swales’ CARS Model and Our Coding Scheme…………..43
Table 3.3 A Typical Introduction Tagged with Moves……………………………….44
Table 3.4 Illustrated Examples of Other Rhetorical Moves………………………….46
Table 3.5 Occurrences and Ranking of Each Move in the Six Journals……………..48
Table 3.6 Occurrence and Percentage of Each Move in Each Journal in the Six Journals…………………………………………………………………… 49
Table 3.7 Move Patterns of Three Move Sequences…………………………………50
Table 3.8 Phraseology of the Move Units……………………………………………56
Table 3.9 Collocational Patterns of the Move Units…………………………………57
Table 3.10 The Comparison between All the Verbs and the Reporting Verbs Identified…………………………………………………………………59
Table 3.11 The Analysis of the Evaluative Meanings of the Reporting Verbs
Identified…………………………………………………………………59
Table 4.1 The Results of the Evaluation of Students’ Introduction Writing………….89
Table 4.2 The Rankings of the Four Dimensions in Evaluation……………………...89
Table 4.3 Move Analysis in the Pre-course and Post-course Data…………………...94
Table 4.4 Hedges and Boosters Used in the Pre-course and Post-course Writing…...95
Table 4.5 Learners’ Development of Hedges across Parts of Speech………………..96
Table 4.6 Learners’ Development of boosters across Parts of Speech……………….97
Table 4.7 Integral Citations and Non-integral Citations Used in the Pre-course and Post-course writing………………………………………………………...98
Table 4.8 The Presentation of the Cited Work in the Applied Linguistics Introductions……………………………………………………………...100
Table 4.9 Types of Reporting Verbs in the Applied Linguistics Introductions……...101
Table 4.10 Usefulness of Moves Structure in Online Materials…………………….103
Table 4.11 Usefulness of Linguistic Features in Online Materials…………………104
Table 4.12 Usefulness of Online Activities………………………………………....104
Table 4.13 Overall Design…………………………………………………………..105
Table 4.14 Computer Platforms and Tools…………………………………….106

List of Figures
Figure 4.1 A Process Genre Model of Writing……………………………………….63
Figure 4.2 MOODLE Platform (editing mode)………………………………………74
Figure 4.3 MOODLE Platform (reading mode) ……………………………………..74
Figure 4.4 An Editing Interface in MOODLE Platform……………………………...75
Figure 4.5 Concordance of Academic wRitten English for discourse function ‘Purpose move (IP).’……………………………………………………………… 76
Figure 4.6 Concordance of Academic wRitten English for the word ‘investigate’….77
Figure 4.7 The Writing Interface of POWER………………………………………...78
Figure 4.8 Peer Editing in POWER…………………………………………………..79
Figure 4.9 Proposed Instructional Design of the Online Introduction Teaching……..80
Figure 4.10 Rule Explanation and Textual examples in the Move Lesson…………..82
Figure 4.11 Matching in the Task Design…………………………………………….83

                                

Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is the standard model? IEEE transactions of professional communication, 42, 38-46.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1994). Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In N. Oostdijk & P. de Haan Atlanta (Eds.). Corpus-based research into language (pp. 201-221). Atlanta: Rodopi BV.
Bloch, J. G. (1988). Academic writing in Chinese and English: Is there a difference? Paper presented at the conference on college composition and communication convention, St. Louis, MO.
Bloch, J., & Chi, L. (1995). A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 231-273). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Brandl, K. (2005). Are you ready to “MOODLE”? Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16-23. Available online [http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/review1/default.html] downloaded on July 19, 2005.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving students’ writing. Research in the teaching of English, 30(2), 149-81.
Chien, C. W. (2005). Effects of online peer response on EFL college writing. Master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, June.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundle in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 379-423.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written in American and Finnish university students. Written communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crookes, G. (1986). Toward a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied linguistics, 7(1), 57-70.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1995). Common-core and specific approaches to the teaching of academic English. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 293-312). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Feng, H. P. (2005). A process-product approach of teaching academic writing: Using the teaching of writing a literature review as an example. Paper presented in the 22nd international conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. June 4-5. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational or process approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal, 47(4), 305-16.
Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 115-135.
Greenman, C. (2004). Coaching academic English through voice and text production models. ReCALL, 16(1), 51-70.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Language, meaning, and text: Towards a general social semiotic. University of Illinois Department of Linguistics Newsletter, 4(2), 7-8.
Hsu, Y. P. (2003). Patterns of plagiarism behavior in the ESL classroom and the effectiveness of instruction in appropriate uses of sources. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. (UMI No. 3086086)
Huang, H. T., & Liou, H. C. (2005). An effectiveness study of an English expository writing course on graduate students’ essays: features of academic writing. Paper presented in the 22nd International conference on English teaching and learning in ROC. June 4-5. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific wiring. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.). Register analysis theory and practice. (pp. 57-73) London: Pinter Publishers.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied linguistics, 20(3), 341-365.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman.
Jarvis, H. (2001). Internet usage of English for academic purposes courses. ReCALL, 13(2), 206-212.
Johns, A. M. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into academic cultural and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.). Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 277-291). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Kanosilapatham, B. (2003). A corpus-based investigation of scientific research articles: Linking move analysis and multidimensional analysis. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Kuo, C. H. (2002). Phraseology in scientific research articles. In Selected papers from the Eleventh international symposium on English teaching (pp. 405-411). Taipei: Crane.
Lau, H. H. (2003). Signals of specifications in papers on Applied Linguistics. In Selected papers from the Twelfth international symposium on English teaching, (pp. 452-458). Tapei: Crane.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.
Li, T. C. (1999). A study of hedging expressions in academic journal articles. Master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Lin, C. Y. (2003). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of Taiwanese students’ written texts. Paper presented in the 6th Wenshan conference on English and American literature. Taipei: Cheng-Chi University.
Liou, H. C., & Chien, C. W. (2005). Effects of collaborative POWERful computational scaffolding on EFL writing. Paper presented at CALICO 2005 Symposium, May 17-21, East Lansing, Michigan State University.
Liou, H. C., Kuo, C. H., Chang, J. S., Chen, H. J., & Chang, C. F. (2005). Web-based academic English course design and material development. Colloquium given at English Teachers' Association Symposium 2005, November 11-13. Taipei: Chien-Tan
Milton, J. (1999). WordPilot 2000. [Computer software]. Hong Kong: CompuLang.
Nag. A. (2005). Moodle: An open source learning management system. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://business. newforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/09/2117200
Pickard, V. (1995). Citing previous writers: What can we say instead of ‘say’. Hong Kong papers in linguistics and language teaching, 18, 89-102.
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English writing. London: Macmillan.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for specific purposes, 21, 1-17.
Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16, 481-499.
Sengupta, S. (2003). Developing and evaluating a web-based resource for writing research articles. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 489-504.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: University of Aston.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Lindemann, S. (2002). Teaching the literature review to international graduate students. In A. M. John (Ed.) Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 105-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written communication, 4 (2), 175-191
Thompson, G., & Yiyun, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied linguistics, 12 (4), 365-382.
Thompson, P. (2000). Citation practice in PhD theses. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.). Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspectives. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citation: Using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 91-105. Retrieved, July 16, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/thompson/default.html
Watt, R. (2002). Conc 300. Dundee, UK: University of Dundee.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.
White, R., & V. Arndt. (1991). Process writing. Harlow: Longman.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文