英語範文的使用在英語為母語、第二語言或外語寫作課程中，常久以來一直是一個有爭議但卻是廣為接受的教學技巧。而研究此相關領域的學者則建議，欲瞭解範文對寫作的影響，必須投入更多的調查研究，尤其是以下幾個議題：範文使用的時間點與方式、不同類型範文的效用、使用範文的數量以及範文對不同語言成熟度學生的效用。在英語為外語學習的台灣，英語範文常被老師運用來輔助培養學生的寫作能力；然而，當地並沒有很多的相關研究來佐證各種範文用途的正當性。此研究旨在為英文範文融入於英語為外語的寫作課，提供更深入的見地及須要留意的事項。
關於此研究調查的確切目地，有下列幾項：（一）廣讀範文對英語寫作的影響；（二）摘要範文對英語寫作的影響；（三）廣讀範文與摘要範文對英語寫作的效益比較；（四）學生對範文使用的態度。為達成以上目的，本研究採用前後測的實驗設計，共有一班十八名外語系閱讀與寫作的學生參與實驗並寫一篇論說文做為實驗的前測，根據前測驗的分數，學生被平均分配到廣讀範文組與摘要範文組，在超過一個月的實驗期間，廣讀組要讀十篇文章而在要組要讀兩篇並予以摘要；後測與前測步驟雷同，以論說文寫作測試學生是否有進步。再者，我們使用了背景問卷調查、回饋問卷調查及訪談，以俾深入了解學生總體的態度。
此研究調查的主要發現，有下列幾項：（一）廣讀範文並不會對寫作產生效益；（二）摘要範文對寫作有某種程度的影響；（三）摘要範文對寫作產生的效益比廣讀範文顯著；（四）學生對於範文的使用整體而言是持正面的態度。由此研究的結果，可以導論出四項在教學上的運用：（一）範文在寫作的使用可佔有一席之地；（二）範文使用時的活動設計而不是數量才是影響效益的主要因素；（三）摘要寫作是配合範文使用一項有效益活動；（四）在使用範文之前，必須要先做學生需求調查分析。
本研究建議，在未來，更多長時間且較多受試者的實驗調查可以設計來探究範文對英語為外語寫作的效用；同時希望，此研究能夠在範文於英語為外語的大學以上的寫作課使用，提供更深入的見解及特別留意的要點

The use of model essays has long been a controversial yet popular technique in both L1 and ESL/EFL writing pedagogy. Researchers in the field so far have recommended that more investigations be made into the effects of model essays on writing, focusing particularly on the following issues: when and how to use models, different types of models, the appropriate number of models, and models for learners with different proficiency levels. In Taiwan as an EFL context, model essays appear to be widely used by writing instructors to facilitate the development of students’ writing proficiency. However, just a few of studies in the local context can be found to justify the theoretical legitimacy of different purposes of model essays in writing classes. The present study aimed to provide more specific insights into and caveats about the incorporation of model essays into EFL writing classroom.
The purposes of this study were to investigate (1) the effects of reading model essays extensively on writing, (2) the effects of summarizing model essays on writing, (3) comparison between the results yielded by reading models extensively and summarizing models, and (4) students’ general attitudes toward the use of model essays. In order to achieve the investigation purposes, a pretest-posttest experiment design was implemented. Eighteen English majors of an intact reading-writing class were asked to write an argumentative essay as the pretest. Based on the scores in pretest essay writing, the participants were equally divided into two groups for reading models extensively and summarizing models. The group of reading models extensively (group E) read ten model essays and the group of summarizing models (group S) summarized two essays over the course of a month. The posttest, which had the same the design as the pretest, was conducted to assess whether or not students made progress. Other instruments such as a Background Questionnaire, a Feedback Questionnaire and an interview were implemented to discover more about students’ general attitudes.
The major findings of the study indicated that (1) reading models extensively might not have positive effects on writing, (2) summarizing models could bring about positive effects on writing but not to a significant level, (3) summarizing models was a more effective technique than extensively reading models, and (4) students generally showed positive attitudes to the use of model essays. From the results of the study, four pedagogical implications were drawn: (1) model essays should have a role in writing pedagogy, (2) it is not the number of models but the tasks accompanying them that are significant, (3) summarization could be an effective technique combined with models, and (4) a students’ need analysis should be made before implementing models.
It is suggested that more studies involving a longer time frame and more participants should be conducted to probe into the effects of models essays on EFL writing. In addition, it is hoped that the present thesis study can provide practical insights into and caveats about the use of model essays in EFL tertiary writing classes.

Bamfrod, J., & Day, R. R. (1997). ER: What is it? Why bother? The Reading Teacher, 21, 6-12.

Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 297-306.

Bensoussan, M., & Kreindler, I. (1990). Improving advanced reading comprehension in a foreign language: Summaries vs. short-answer questions. Journal of Research in Reading 13, 55-68.

Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Memory and Language, 22, 1-14.

Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge University Press.

Carrell, P. L., & Carson, J. G. (1997). Extensive and intensive reading in an EAP setting. English for Specific Purpose, 16, 47-60.

Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: What student writers take from model texts. Research in the Teaching English, 29(1), 88-125.

Chiang Mei-chuan. (1998). The effects of model-based instruction on Chinese students’ English writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Cohen, A. D. (1993). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nd ed., pp. 327-328). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Collins, A., & Gentner, D. (1980). A framework for a cognitive theory of writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 51-72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Corbett, E. P. J. (1965). Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford University Press.

Corbett, E. P. J. (1971). The theory and practice of imitation in classical rhetorical. College Composition and Communication, 22, 242-250.

Doctorow, M., Marks, C., & Wittrock, M. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Education Psychology, 70, 109-118.

Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effects of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411.

Elley, W., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

Eschholz, P. A. (1980). The prose models approach: Using products in the process. In T. R. Donovan & B. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp.21-36). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (pp. 8–9 ). Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gottschalk, K. K. (1984). Writing in the non-writing class. In F. V. Bogel & K. K. Gottschalk (Eds.), Teaching prose: A guiding for writing instructors (pp. 396). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Gradman, H., & Hanania, E. (1991). Language learning background factors and ESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 75, 39-51.

Green, S. (1993). Exploring the relationship between authorship and reading. In A. Penrose & B. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive research in the college writing classroom (pp. 33-51). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills. ELT Journal, 43(1), 4-13.

Hare, V. C. (1992). Summarizing text. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 115). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics (pp. 15). New York: Newbury House Publisher.

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473-493.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually want: Academic tasks for ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.

Jacobs, H. J. et al. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House, Rowley, MA.

Janopoulous, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 764-768.

Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-263.

Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253-271.

Johnson, N. S. (1983). What do you do if you can’t tell the whole story? The development of summarization skills. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’ language (pp. 315-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kaplan, Robert. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revised. In Connor, B. & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp.9-21). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569-581.

Kirkland, M. R., & Saunders, M. A. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 105-119.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and application. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.

Krashen, S. S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.

Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading; Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Lai, F. K. (1993). The effects of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills. System, 21(1), 87-100.

Langan, J. (1993). Ten steps to advancing college reading skills. Townsend Press.

Langer, J. A. (1992). Reading, writing, and genre development. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 32-54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 123-143.

Mason, B., & Krahsen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System 25, 91-102.

Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.

Mikulecky, B. (1990). A short course in teaching reading skills. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Oded, B., & Walters, J. (2001). Deeper processing for better EFL reading comprehension. System, 29, 357-370.
Purves, A. C., & Purves, W. C. (1986). Viewpoints: Cultures, text models, and the activity of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 174-97.

Radmacher, S, A., & Sawin, E. L. (1995). Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in Psychology. Teaching in Psychology, 22(2), 113-115.

Ratteray, O. M. T. (1985). Expanding roles for summarized information. Written Communication, 2(4), 457-472.

Reder, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 121-134.

Renandya, W. A., Rajan, S., & Jacobs, G. M. (1999). Extensive reading with adult learners of English as a second language. RELC Journal, 30 (1), 39-60.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). Singapore: Longman.

Shanklin, N. (1982). Relating reading and writing: Developing a transactional theory of the writing process. Bloomington. IN: Indiana University School of Education.

Sagri, G. (1993). Composing a study-summary: A reading/writing encounter. In J.G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 161-182). Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Sherrard, C. (1989). Teaching students to summarize: Applying textlinguistics. System, 17(1), 1-11.

Smagorinsky, P. (1992). How reading model essays affects writers. In J. W. Irwin & M. A. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections: Learning from research (pp. 166-176). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Spack, R., & Sadow, C. (1983). Student-teacher working journals in ESL freshman composition. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 575-593.
Spiro, R. (1980). Constructive processes in prose recall. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 245-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spivey, N. (1987). Contructruing Constructivism. Poetics, 16, 169-192.

Spivey, N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, pp. 256-287.

Stolarek, E. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The effect of modeling on developing a metacognitive stance toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 154-174.

Taylor, K. K. (1984). The different summary skills of inexperienced and professional writers. Journal of Reading, 27, 691-699.

Tsang, W. K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 210-233.

Watson, C. B. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 5-13.

Whol, M. (1978). Techniques for writing: Composition. Newbury House.

Wu, C. C. (2002). A case study of the rhetorical analysis via expository models on Taiwanese freshmen’s English compositions. Unpublished master’s thesis of National Tsing Hua University, Hinchu, Taiwan, R. O. C.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processing of advanced ESL students: Six case studies TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.