根據英語學習者語料的研究指出:程度高的語言學習者仍有困難寫出具有連貫性的文章。而達到文章連貫性的方法之一則是運用銜接性詞彙使文章連結。探究學習者的文章，發現幾種有關使用銜接性詞彙的錯誤，例如連寫句(run-on)及連接詞誤用(misuse)等等，這些需進一步的指導與練習以求改善。這些問題的來源，其中最主要的包括課本裡僅列出連接詞字群表格，未顧慮到學生對非正式的口語和正式的寫作文體風格差異的知識不足，這種沒有搭配合宜教法之教材，誤導學生學習。學者們曾提出建議以加強連接詞的教學，但目前具體檢驗其成效的研究仍非常少見。隨著網路科技的發展，線上教學基於幾項優勢受到廣泛提倡:自行選擇學習的方便性，線上關鍵詞索引工具，豐富的語料資源，以及具有即時回饋的練習類型。因此，將電腦網路應用於連接詞教學是否有效值得研究。
本研究旨在探討四個自行設計之網路連接詞單元的成效。該設計的教材修改了傳統的教學方式並利用了網路科技的優勢。十九位來自一門大一英語寫作課的學生在九十三年度第一學期參與此研究。在本實驗進行之前，受試者填寫一份背景問卷，以了解學生使用電腦的情況及過去的英文學習行為。之後，學生在課堂上進行四個單元的學習，歷時四週 (題型含填充題、合併句子、連寫句錯誤識別及文章重組練習)。受試者學習後接受測驗及限時寫作的評量，該測驗施行於線上練習之前及之後；練習結束三週後，再施以一次延宕後測以考察學生是否遺忘。實驗結束後，受試者填寫一份問卷，評估對此線上連接詞教材的感受。我們用「無母數統計法」(Wilcoxon) 檢驗受試者的前測、後測及延宕後測是否有顯著差異，作文評分也用同樣的方法比較;至於作文中的連接詞錯誤則是以錯誤率來計算。最後，學生文章的質化觀察也包含在結果分析中。
資料分析結果，我們發現學生的連接詞使用不僅在測驗的模式下有所改進，同時在作文表現上也顯示進步。經過線上練習後，學生不但作文中連接詞錯誤減少，整體的作文品質也提升了。問卷結果顯示學生對於這份線上連接詞教材抱持著正面的態度，並肯定其在寫作學習上的成效。然而，他們也指出教材中連接詞的意義解說應該更為具體化，並希望有較多樣化的練習題型。
本研究發現合宜之線上練習對學生寫作中連接詞之運用學習是有效的。它不但幫助學生釐清各個連接詞的多重意義，更使學生了解到連接詞在作文中的重要性。有了先進的電腦工具輔助，線上教材可以讓學生連接性詞彙的使用有所進步，也對於學生的寫作能力有所助益。

Previous research on EFL and ESL learners’ writing has revealed that some advanced language learners may have difficulties in creating coherent texts. One of the essential textual elements for coherence is cohesion, which can be maintained via cohesive devices. Several succinct patterns of mistakes in learner production concerning the use of cohesive devices were diagnosed, such as run-on sentences and misuse of connectors. Related studies have examined the source of these problems and indicated that the major causes could be the misleading lists of connectors in textbooks as well as students’ insufficient knowledge of style differences between casual speech and formal writing. This requires well-designed instruction and practice to improve. Some suggestions have been offered by researchers to reinforce the teaching of conjunction; however, few of them have been examined empirically on their effects so far. With the development of Internet technologies, online instruction is advocated for advantages of self-access convenience, bilingual concordancing, rich resources of corpora, and sophisticated exercise types with immediate feedback.
The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of four self-designed online conjunction units by modifying the traditional approaches and incorporating the advantages of the computer technology. The design featured textual instruction on the semantic properties and style differences of each cohesive device with corpus-based illustrations in context as well as exercises of various types (gap filling, sentence combining, run-on identification, and reformulation activity). Nineteen college freshmen of English majors from an intact writing class participated in the study in the fall semester, 2004. Before the study, a background questionnaire was given to gain information about students’ use of computers and previous learning behaviors. In the following, the online practice lasted for four weeks. A pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest three weeks after were administered to measure students’ learning of connectors in controlled contexts. Besides, the data of students’ writing before and after the instruction were collected to analyze their overall writing quality and the use of these devices in free production contexts. At the end of the study, all the participants’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the online conjunction instruction were elicited through an evaluation questionnaire. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test was run to investigate if there were any significant differences among scores in the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest. Students’ writing quality rated by the ESL Composition Profile was compared by the same statistic measurement and their conjunction errors in writing were analyzed in terms of the error rates. Qualitative observation of students’ texts was also included in the analysis.
Through data analyses, it was found that learners’ use of conjunction not only improved significantly in a controlled context as demonstrated in both the posttest and delayed posttest but also in free production of writing. The conjunction errors reduced in students’ post-instruction writing and their overall writing quality improved as well. Responses from the evaluation questionnaire showed that students generally held positive attitudes toward the online conjunction units and endorsed the effectiveness of the online instruction in writing. On the other hand, they also recommended more concrete meaning explanations of conjunction and more varieties of exercise types.
The results of the study supported that a web-based conjunction instruction module is able to assist EFL college students’ conjunction acquisition in both controlled and free production contexts. It helps students clarify the various meanings of each connector and perceive the important role of conjunction in English writing. With advanced computer tools, the online material design can be effective in improving students’ use of conjunctive devices and beneficial for their writing ability.

Altenberg, B. (1986). Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In G. Tottie & I. Backlund (Eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium (pp. 13-40). Uppsala: Semqvist & Wiksell International.

Basturkmen, H. (2002). Clause relations and macro patterns: Cohesion, coherence and the writing of advanced ESOL students. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 50-56.

Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45-80). New Jersey: Albex.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Conner & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text (pp. 47-56). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Chang, J. S., Wu, J. C., Shei, W. C., Chang, Y. C., & Jian, J. Y. (2004). The role of Natural Language Processing in Computer Assisted Language Learning – Project CANDLE 12 months later. Proceedings of ELT and E-learning in an electronic age: Issues and alternatives. Tamkang University, May 28-29.

Chang, Y. F. (2003). An investigation of parts of speech in interlanguage: Subordinators in Taiwan learners’ English writing. Master’s thesis, Tamkang University.

Chao, Y. C. (2004). Spoken language used in L2 writing: A transitional development? The selected papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (Vol. II, pp. 18-26). Taipei, Crain.

Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34. (http://llt.msu.edu/)

Chapelle, C. A. & Hegelheimer, V. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner-computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 41-59. (http://llt.msu.edu/)

Chen, H. J. (2001). Taiwanese EFL learner corpus and interlanguage analysis. The Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 288-299). Taipei, Crane.

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(4), 471-484.

Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal, 44(4), 316-325.

Diez, M., Halbach, A., & Rivas, C. (2000). Student difficulties with writing: a look at cohesion. In L. Sierra & A. M. Morra (Eds.) Research in academic English: communicative skills and strategies in the University context (pp. 69-78). Universidad de Alcala, Spain.

Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 50-80. (http://llt.msu.edu)

Edina Torlakovic, B. A. H. (2001). Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in English. Master’s thesis, Carleton University.

Ehrlich, S. (1988). Cohesive devices and discourse competence. World Englishes, 7(2), 111-118.

Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87-105.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enkvist, N. E. (1987). Text linguistics for the applier: An orientation. In U. Conner & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text (pp. 23-43). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Field, Y. (1994). Cohesive conjunctions in the English writing of Cantonese speaking students from Hong Kong. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 125-139.

Field, Y. & Yip, L. M. O. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28.

Geva, E. (1992). The role of conjunctions in L2 text comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 731-747.

Geva, E. & Ryan, E. B. (1985). Use of conjunctions in expository texts by skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 331-346.

Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.

Granger, S. (Ed.) (1998). Learner English on computer. London: Longman.

Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538-546.

Granger, S. & Rayson, P. (1998). Automatic profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 119-131). London: Longman.

Granger, S. & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 199-209). London: Longman.

Granger, S. & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hartnett, C. G. (1986). Static and dynamic cohesion: Signals of thinking in writing. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 142-153). New Jersey: Albex.

Heift, T. (2003). Multiple learner errors and meaningful feedback: A challenge for ICALL systems. CALICO Journal, 20(3), 533-548.

Higgins, J. J., Lawrie, A. M., & White, A. G. (1999). Recognising coherence: The use of a text game to measure and reinforce awareness of coherence. System, 27(3), 339-349.

Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Conner & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Hoey, M. & Winter, E. (1986). Clause relations and the writer’s communicative task. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 120-141). New Jersey: Albex.

Hoffman, S. (1995). Computers and instructional design in foreign language/ESL instruction. TESOL Journal, 5(2), 24-29.

Huang, T. L. (1986). Applied linguistics and teaching English language. Taipei: Crane.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Johns, A. M. (1984). Textual cohesion and the Chinese speaker of English. Language Learning and Communication, 3(1), 69-73.

Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-265.

Johnson, K. E. (1992). Cognitive strategies and second language writers: A re-evaluation of sentence combining. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 61-75.

Kolln, M. (1999). Cohesion and coherence. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating Writing: The role of teachers' knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 93-113). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Krishnamurthy, R. (2001). Language corpora: How can teachers and students use these valuable new resources? The Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 59-65). Taipei, Crane.

Kuo, M. L. (2002). Discourse markers of “because and so” in Taiwanese EFL students’ written and spoken discourse. Master’s thesis, National Tsing-Hua University.

Lake, J. (2004). Using “on the contrary”: the conceptual problems for EAP students. ELT Journal, 58(2), 137-144.

Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.

Lee, J. & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Harlo: Longman.

Lin, F. Y. (2002). Preferred structures in Chinese-English translation. Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education.

Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beede (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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 (pp. 55-75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meunier, F. (1998). Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 19-37). London: Longman.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1982). Reading research and the composition teacher: The importance of plans. College Composition and Communication, 33, 37-49.

Milton, J. (1999). Lexical thickets and electronic gateways: Making text accessible by novice writers. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 221-243). Harlow: Longman.

Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.

Neuner, J. L. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92-105.

Nutta, J. (1998). Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher-directed grammar instruction for teaching L2 structures? CALICO Journal, 16(1), 49-62.

Omaggio Hadley, A. & Terry, R. M. (2000). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79-109.

Ruetten, M. K. (2003). Developing composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar (2nd ed.). USA: Thomson Heinle.

Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271-285.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Shaw, P. & Liu, E. T-K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-254.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steffani, S. A. & Nippold, M. A. (1997). Japanese speakers of American English: Competence with connectives in written language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1048-1055.

Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58(1), 1-21.

Tierney, R & Mosenthal, J. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 215-229.

Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Chien, F. Y., Liu, A., & Tsao, N. L. (2001). A web-based EFL writing environment: integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers & Education, 37, 297-315.

Widdowson, H. G. (1980). Conceptual and communicative functions in written discourse. Applied Linguistics, 1, 234-243.

Witte, S. P. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-203.

Wu, S. R. (2005). Use of connectives by international professional writers and Taiwanese EFL writers. The Proceedings of the twenty-second International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 342-351). Taipei, Crane.

Yao, C. K. (2004). A task-based approach to teaching paragraph writing in an EFL context. The Proceedings of the twenty-first International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 65-78). Taipei, Crane.

Yu, Y. T. (2004), Computerized feedback and bilingual concordancer for EFL college students’ writing. Master’s thesis, National Tsing-Hua University.

Zamel, V. (1983). Teaching those missing links in writing. ELT Journal, 37(1), 22-29.

尤雪瑛 (1993). 從篇章語法觀點談英語連接詞的功能及其教法. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 251-262). Taipei, Crane.

劉顯親、葉由俐、吳文舜、徐桂平、楊中玉 (Liou, et al., 2003). 提昇資訊化時代大學生之英文讀寫能力：以清大網路「讀寫資源中心」為例 (Improving university-level reading and writing instruction in an information age: Illustration of a Web-based online English reading & writing resources center at NTHU). Proceedings of APAMALL 2003 and ROCMELIA 2003 (pp. 502-513). 台北文鶴, 計畫編號MOE 乙-91-FA04-4