融入「服務學習」於大學英文寫作課程
研究成果報告(精簡版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 98-2410-H-004-135- 執 行 期 間 ： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 07 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學外文中心 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 劉怡君 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2 年後可公開查詢中 華 民 國 99 年 09 月 20 日
□
□
□
□期中
期中
期中
期中
進度
進度
進度
進度
報告
報告
報告
報告
融入「服務學習」於大學英文寫作課程計畫類別：□個別型計畫 □整合型計畫
計畫編號：NSC
98-2410-H-004-135執行期間： 98 年 8 月 1 日至 99 年 7 月 31 日
執行機構及系所：國立政治大學 外文中心
計畫主持人：劉怡君
共同主持人：
計畫參與人員：
成果報告類型(依經費核定清單規定繳交)：□精簡報告 □完整報
告
本計畫除繳交成果報告外，另須繳交以下出國心得報告：
□赴國外出差或研習心得報告
□赴大陸地區出差或研習心得報告
□出席國際學術會議心得報告
□國際合作研究計畫國外研究報告
處理方式：除列管計畫及下列情形者外，得立即公開查詢
□涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，□一年□二年後可公開
查詢
中 華 民 國 99 年 9 月 14 日
(二) 中、英文摘要及關鍵詞 (keywords):
服務學習, 第二外語寫作, 經驗轉換, 身分(service learning, L2 writing, experience transfer, identity)
(三)報告內容：
前言 前言前言 前言::::
Service learning (S-L), rooted in experiential learning and kinship with situated learning,
is defined as “a structured learning experience that combines community service with explicit
learning objectives, preparation and reflection” (Seifer, 1998p. 274). Research of S-L has not
been embraced as one of the major strands in the field of TESOL because of its inherent
research complications. It is reported that S-L research has difficulties in examining outcomes
with individual’s divergent engagement, in enhancing external validity for generalizability
(Furco, 1994; Howard, 2003), in eliminating asymmetrical power relations between the givers
and receivers (Deans, 2000; Flower, 2002; Himley, 2004; Morton, 1995) and in constructing
instruments to evaluate dynamic outcomes across disciplines and service sites (Billig, 2000;
Furco, 2003; Gray, 1996). Another confounding issue of S-L research is the inconsistent
findings of its outcomes. On one hand, some researchers reported that S-L helps students gain
understanding of course content (Astin et al., 2000; Bringle and Hatcher, 1995; Bringle and
Hatcher, 1996; Eyler and Giles, 1999; Heuser, 1999; Markus et al, 1993), enhance learning
higher-order thinking skills (Batchelder and Root, 1994; Deans, 2000; Eyler and Giles 1999;
Hesser, 1995). On the other hand, some other researchers found little relationship of S-L with
students’ course grades (Kendrick, 1996; Gray et al. 2000; Miller, 1994), academic
performance as well as professional skill development (Gray et al. 2000).
In spite of not being prevailing in TESOL, S-L in Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan,
Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines and Korea has been gaining attention. Proliferating
teachers are promoting service learning, and various S-L practices and programs in higher
education are mushrooming in Asia (Kraft, 2002). This educational shift has resulted in
pressing demand for S-L studies in EFL contexts. However, besides the issue of research
complications, most of the studies of S-L in TESOL are conducted in contexts where English is
the first or the second language. Little research studies S-L in EFL contexts.
研究目的 研究目的研究目的 研究目的::::
To fill the gap by exploring S-L research in EFL context and to enrich S-L research of L2
writing, this study attempts to investigate the impacts of S-L on Taiwanese students’ writing
from the socio-cognitive and rhetorical perspectives. Moreover, theoretical as well as teaching
implications are suggested. My research questions are:
1. What are the socio-cognitive impacts of S-L on experience transfer of EFL writing? 2. What are the rhetorical impacts of S-L on identity construction of EFL writing?
文獻探討 文獻探討文獻探討 文獻探討::::
Social-cognitive transfer: Dewey and S-L researchers believe that experience becomes
educative only if it has been transformed into meaningful codes and connected with the existing
schemata through critical reflection (Bringle and Hatcher, 1999). However, transfer between
experience and academic modules does not automatically take place as generally assumed. A
number of researchers have reported that cognitive transfer is learning context specific
(Belmont, 1982) and is difficult to be provoked (Carson, et al. 1990; James, 2006, 2009;
Perkins and Martin, 1986; Tardy, 2006). Eisterhold (1990) agreed with the findings of
inactivity in learning transfer. She suggested that students need to learn to “restructure” the
received information in order to facilitate learning transfer (p. 97).
Salomon and Perkins (1987) proposed the theory of high/ low road transfer. Low road
transfer refers to reflexive performances which can be automatically triggered due to mastery
through practices and contextual similarity (p.151). For example, one’s knowledge of driving a
car can be transferred to drive a truck. In contrast to the automatic reflex of low road transfer,
high road transfer involves deliberately cognitive abstraction from one context to another. This
transfer is conscious and effortful, and it is independent from contextual similarity, for example,
strategies of problem solving or decision making (p.152).
Most of the traditional education in general encourages low road transfer through practices.
text-responsible tasks and course writing tasks and assessed them by an instrument for 15
learning outcomes. James found that only a few learning outcomes transfer from the course to
the task, such as classifying (content level), using cueing statements (organization level),
avoiding sentence fragments and avoiding subject plus pronoun repetition (language level). He
further suggested that the transfer at the content and organizational level is more task-specific
than the transfer at the language level. However, in a broader sense according to Salomon and
Perkins, the transfer at the levels of content, organization or language is not the activity of
higher level thinking but the activity of low road transfer. Moreover, the course writing and the
task writing should be seen as similar rather than different transfer contexts of writing exercises.
Therefore, James’ finding of distinctive differences in learning outcomes and little transfer
generated from students’ writing tasks should suggest students’ insensitivity to the stimulus of
contextual similarities or lack of mastery of writing skills.
Writing with S-L may encourage implicit learning and high road transfer of knowledge
construction. In the writing curriculum incorporated with S-L, on one hand, community
services offer complex stimulus for social interactions; on the other hand, writing projects serve
as the perfect reflections that enhance cognitive exercises to “restructure” the acquired new
experience for meaning making. Both theorists of experientialism and situated learning believe
that hands-on experience derived from social interactions shapes knowledge and affects proxy
learning takes place when one immerses, acquires, maintains and transfers knowledge through
process of social interaction (Contu and Willmott, 2003). The information acquired from
situated learning can be more easily connected with the complex memory network to create
schematic cues that facilitate information retrieval (Eyler and Giles, 1999, p. 65-66). However,
little research explores how service learning facilitates high road transfer, and how service
experience can be high road transferred for knowledge construction.
Identity: Identity, according to Tajfel (1974), is defined as “an individual’s self-concept
which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together
with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (p.69). The less engaged S-L
participants usually take volunteer work as joining an activity physically; their detachment
may result in little identity reconstruction but questioning why “’we’ have to face (up to) “the
stranger” in order to accomplish ‘our’ tasks” (Himley, 2004, p.418). However, the engaged
participants who both physically and emotionally embrace the cultures of the service
communities may evolve a new identity as a member of the service community. Identifying
oneself with the community and socially participating in community practices shape one’s
views about self and the interpretation of the world (Wenger, 1998). Therefore, participants’
engagement into the community and perception about themselves in the community affects
their construction of “autobiographical self” as well as the “self as author” (Ivanic, 1998),
In order to explore the S-L enduring influence on identity development, Jones and Abes
(2004) investigated eight participants who had done their community services 2-4 years
before the research. The result shows that S-L experience enhances participants’ identity
development of “caring self” and “self-authorship.” Engaged participants were enabled to
reflect their self in relation to the others, to commit themselves to socially responsible work
and to develop their positions and values without being affected by others.
Besides identity of caring self and self authorship, Powdermaker (1966), from
perspective of anthropology, also indicated that on-site work encourages participants’ identity
to be not only an “outsider” by researching the familiar to explore the unfamiliar but also an
“insider” by participating in the unfamiliar to make it familiar. Although a number of L2
writing researchers have well discussed identity and found its influences on writing in various
aspects, no researcher studies how the identities generated from S-L affect EFL writing.
研究方法 研究方法研究方法 研究方法::::
A qualitative study was conducted in a national university in Taiwan1 where four credit
hours of community service, at least 28 working hours, are compulsory for all the
undergraduate students. Participants (N=26) were the students taking an English writing
course incorporated with service learning. It was an elective course available for all the
undergraduate students from different disciplines. Most of the participants were sophomore
1
It is competitive to enter a top-tier national university. Usually students who are accepted by the top-tier national university have medium to high English proficiency.
and junior students from schools of social science, education and humanity. Those who
successfully completed the course could receive two credits for both the College English and
community service (14 working hours). Participants could freely choose community volunteer
services within or beyond the list of non-profit organizations provided by the school2. They
could either team up with peers or work individually. Besides doing community services after
classes, students learned English academic writing during the class hours. The curriculum was
designed based on Deans’ (2000) rationale of “Writing about the Community.” Students were
requested to complete three writing projects, narration, comparison/contrast and argumentation,
during a semester. No specific writing topics were assigned to students for the three writing
projects except that they should be composed based on writers’ service related experience.
The writing instruction mainly covered the academic writing conventions and rhetorical
strategies of the three writing modes, such as brainstorming, topic sentence, thesis statement,
supporting points, transition, coherence, style, logic, voice and organization.
Research Design and Data Collection
As a teacher researcher, I tried to fairly treat all the engaged and unengaged S-L
participants in order to minimize inappropriate implications. I kept a teaching log to jot down
my observations about and interactions with the students to maintain my research sensitivity. A
total of 15 diary entries were recorded. I consider my status as a teacher researcher appropriate
2
The school’s suggestion URL of the non-profit organizations is: http://osa2.nccu.edu.tw/~activity/service-learning/certificate.html
because the impacts of service learning isintricate and impalpable, which can be affected by
self perception, nature of community services, participants’ personalities, quality of
interaction and other complex factors; the same services may lead to different effects on
individuals. Without close interaction with participants in the same context, researchers can
hardly capture students’ negotiations to draw forth in-depth analysis.
Among students’ three writing projects, I only collected the latter two,
comparison/contrast and argumentation, because I concerned that students might not have
gained enough service experience while working on the first writing project. A pilot survey
(see Appendix 1) was conducted in the 7th week of the semester to inquire possible impacts of
S-L on students’ writing in general. From question 1 to 5, students could multiply choose the
top four applied answers but could only choose one answer for questions 6 to11. Based on
students’ survey and my teaching logs, the focuses of cognitive transfer and identity
construction were inductively emerged. Furthermore, I broke down these focuses into more
specific guiding questions for interview and students’ journals, such as while composing
project 2 and 3, how topics were generated, and what the imagined textual roles were
constructed or developed (see Appendix 2). All the students needed to submit two reflection
journals (N= 26x2) respectively after completion of project 2 and 3 to reflect their writing
To learn more about the impacts of S-L on students’ rhetorical level, I analyzed students’
writing texts by focusing on students’ textual identities and their written voice. At the end of
the semester, a text-based as well as semi-structured interview was conducted.
Research Procedure:
Regarding research question one, the S-L impacts on EFL writers’ experience transfer, I
firstly recognized students’ difficulty in cognitive transfer from students’ complains during
in-class discussions and at office hours. To learn more about how students conceptualized
their service experience into writing ideas, I scrutinized my teaching log, survey results,
students’ journals as well as interview protocols and then categorized data to inductively
generate types of experience transfer.
Regarding research question two, the S-L impacts on EFL writers’ identity construction, I
first, based on the survey results, excluded the students perceiving themselves as not a
member of the service communities (N=7) because the unengaged participants would have
little identity transformation. Since voice is viewed as the projection of the writer’s textual
identity constructed through social-contextual negotiations, some rhetorical strategies and
discursive features are viewed as the indicators for identity analysis. For example, how did
the writers manage the opponent’s point of views? How did the writers position themselves,
such as using the self-referential pronouns, “we,” “I,” and “our?” Other personal pronouns,
Moreover, the lexical and syntactic choices that can position the writers were also analyzed
based on Ivanic and Camps’ (2001) framework of identity analysis, for example, “using
generic or specific nominal reference, using personal or impersonal ways of referring to
people, using nominalization for processes rather than full finite verbs, using active or passive
verb forms, with or without mention of agents, placing topics in subject, object, possessive or
circumstantial roles in clauses” (p.14).Two trained reviewers, who were graduate students in
the related field, read only the engaged students’ writings (N=19x2). They marked the
identities cues in texts according to Ivanic and Camps’ framework and commented those
students’ identities within texts. After comparing the reviewers’ comments, I analyzed the
students’ written texts based on Ivanic and Camps’ framework again. The textual analysis of
identity, then, was triangulated with students’ interview protocols and journal reflections.
Research questions and data collection are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Research questions and data collection
When asked the difficulties in writing according to their service experience, “finding
topics based on service experience” were chosen by 17 students (65%) (see Figure 1). Eighty
one percent of the students (N=21) agreed that this S-L writing course facilitates their ability
to transfer daily life experience into knowledge. When asked question 4, “What are the
impacts of S-L on my writing?,” 77% of the students reported that they are prompted to
transfer daily life experience; 73% of the students perceived themselves as the member of
their service communities, and 88% of the students indicated that service experience allowed
them to obtain the first-hand data and hands-on experience (see Figure 2).
Figure 1 S-L students’ writing difficulty
結果與討論 結果與討論結果與討論 結果與討論::::
Learning as transfer
The majority of the students (88%) reported that obtaining first-hand data and hands-on
experience is the major impact of service learning. To be more specific, this personal and
social involvement allows students to not only make transfer in experience (77%) but also in
identity (membership: 73%). Learning takes place within everyday practices, and knowledge
is constructed through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2005);
however, daily life experience does not transfer to knowledge spontaneously. One of the most
challenges that S-L students encountered is to conceptualize their service experience to find
writing ideas. Although some students reported that their service experience facilitated topic
finding and idea generation when the cues elicited from service experience were manifest to
them, many students (65%) reported difficulties in topic findings. Writing based on service
experience limits writingspectrum, therefore, may either specify or constrain writing ideas.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Q 4. What are The Impacts of S-L on My Writing?
Types of services and chances of social interactions also affect students’ topic finding. Most
of the volunteer work offered by the communities to S-L students are chores for part-time and
temporary, such as packing, distributing flyers, data entry, filing, or translation. The
mechanical nature and no-brainer tasks make experience transfer an esoteric challenge. To help
students transfer their service experience, I introduced tagmemic questions in class (Young
and Becker, 1965) and adopted strategy of guided questioning (King, 1994) which prompts
students’ explanations, inferences, justifications, speculations and evaluating ideas, such as
“What would happen if…?” or “Why is … important?” (p.340).
Data of students’ experience transfer are inductively categorized into four categories,
disconnection, connection, negotiation and invention, as the following:
Disconnection
(Student A: a junior student from the department of Journalism, volunteering in Taiwan
Foundation of the Blind as a story reader)
Student A wrote her project 2 by contrasting animal therapy and medical therapy in
which little related service experience was applied. In the interview, student A told me that
she had very little chance to socially interact with the employees because what she was
assigned to do was to pick storybooks and read and record the stories at home. In her journal
2, she admitted difficulty in finding an appropriate topic for project 2, “…actually the project
couldn’t find anything to compare from what I did” (Journal 2, Student A). However, without
looking for help, A failed to write her project based on her service experience.
Connection
(Student B: serving in an animal shelter to help take care of stray dogs and solicit them at
the animal adoption fairs.)
Student B came to see me during office hour to discuss what to write about her project 3.
The following is the excerpt from my teaching log.
Student B: I have no idea about what to write for my Argumentation.
Teacher: What have you observed in the stray animal adoption fair?
Student B: Many people stopped by to take pictures with the cute puppies, but very few
really adopted them.
Teacher: How do you think?
Student B: I don’t know… I think… life is unfair. Some popular breed dogs enjoy
luxurious cares and attentions from their owners. But many mixed dogs with unattractive
appearance are abandoned or suffering from finding a good home.
Teacher: It’s a good point for your argumentative essay (Teaching log, Entry 14).
Through discussion, student B connected her service experience with her prior knowledge
to question life fairness and then generated argument about stray animal control.
(Student C: a senior student from the department of Japanese, working in National Youth
Commission as a translator.)
Student C knew what he wanted to write, but he had trouble to negotiate the information
obtained from service with the writing reality.
Student C: … While translating their website from Chinese to Japanese, I obtained a lot
of governmental information about visa of working holiday in Taiwan. I wanted to
contrast it with Japanese policies and promotion strategies, but it’s difficult to find
documents of working holiday from Japanese government.
Teacher: Why are you interested in the topic of “working holiday?”
Student C: I love travel, and I found traveling with a travel visa makes great differences
from traveling with a visa of working holiday.
Teacher: How about contrasting differences between the two travel statuses?
Student C: Yes. Thank you (Teaching log, Entry 5).
Student C negotiated what he wanted to write with what he could actually write under the
available contextual resources. With the teachers’ help, finally he reconciled what he was
interested in writing with what he managed to write about.
Invention
(Student D: a junior student volunteering as an English-Chinese translator at the World
Student D shared with the teacher about her topic finding process of project 3 at the
interview.
Student D: After reading and translating the letters, I would like to follow up the little
boy’s life in his country, Congo, and the ongoing civil war he mentioned in his letter. I
tried very hard to search the internet news and the related information, but I was very
disappointed. I couldn’t find anything from our media.
Teacher: So, what did you do?
Student D: I struggled so much that I decided to argue whether our media and newspapers
are internationalized enough. Should media report only the news which has “high stake” to
our country? Should media be interests-orientated? (Interview, Student D)
The difficult inquiry process itself was recognized as something meaningful to student D
after her research frustration. Student D, through critical inventing process that went beyond
what she had planned to do, successfully invented the cognitive link to ground her frustration
with her service experience.
Student A’s failing to find effective writing topic may result from her few interactions
with people in the service site and lack of experience in recognizing meaningful
representations generated from experience. However, student B, C and D could abstract and
transfer service experience to respond demands from writing contexts with or without
daily life experience; therefore, scaffolds or prompts students’ high road transfer of implicit
learning, cognitive negotiation, critical invention and knowledge construction.
Learning as acculturation
Contu and Willmott (2003) conceived learning as becoming members of the “community”
in which individuals learn through acculturation from engaged participation. Community
services allow participants to have both cultural exposure of and social interactions with the
service communities. Interplay of the two factors of culture and social facilitates
transformation of one’s value, perspective and interpretation of self and the world. With
hands-on experience and first-hand data, hence, the engaged S-L participants usually,
consciously or unconsciously, emerge hybrid perspectives from identities of insiders and
outsiders while writings. The insider’s perspective stems from S-L participants’ observations
and familiarity gained from the identity as a member of the service communities, which
allows the S-L participants to see the aspects that are not available outside. Whereas, the
outsider’s identity allows S-L participants to objectively analyze the service-related issues
from a more detached position. Based on the data, S-L participant writers are generalized into
two types, coherence and incoherence. The followings are examples for illustration.
(Student E: a junior student of Sociology, working as a teaching assistant at an
orphanage). In her second writing project, student E contrasted the differences between kids
with parents and orphans at Bethany.
... When everything comes to Bethany, they are totally different…There are about 70
children in Bethany and they need to share 9 rooms and fifteen social workers. In other
words, every social worker takes care for 6 to 7 children, and every kid in Bethany shared
their living space to each other with little privacy. Furthermore, kids need to leave Bethany
after they graduate from high school and start to make life by themselves. Bethany helps
the children to obtain a temporary job as they are in 2nd grade of senior high school. Thus,
about 70 percents of children choose to study at vocational schools instead of regular high
schools and get into labor market while same-age children study in the university (Student
E, Comparison/Contrast).
To make her contrast more academically appropriate, Student E adopted the third
person’s perspective to share her scrutiny about the system of and practice in the orphanage.
Her insider’s identity allows her to observe the particular details of the orphanage, and her
outsider’s identity enables her sensitivity in discerning the divergences between kids with and
without parents. Student E described her exigency about contrasting the welfare of orphanage
in her journal one, “Through the service learning, I started to know the fact instead of just
to help the kids. ..” Even though Student E was “angry” as an insider about deficient resources,
she discussed the issue by depicting the contextual details and using numbers and present
simple tense. She refrained from her insider’s emotion but consistently adopt the outsider’s
authorial identity to reveal the inside story.
However, insider’s identity and attachment may backfire leading to unprofessional voice
or reinforce personal prejudice. Unskillful EFL writers who lack rhetorical strategies in
controlling over their hybrid identities may produce choppy or inconsistent voice.
Incoherent identity
(Student F, volunteering as an assistant in a Rest Home for visiting clients and reporting
their needs). Student F argued the issue of legalization of euthanasia. Her hands-on
experience and involvement hinders her from making coherent voice.
…[1]Religious people think that nobody could strip off the others’ lives which are given by
God. But who cares about the thoughts of the sick and their families?.... Take Mr. Yang, I
served for, for example, he knew he couldn’t recover and considered himself a burden for
his children. He lived so unhappy and often wished to die soon…why people couldn’t
decide how long they want to live?...If God loved Mr. Yang, why it made Mr. Yang’s live
so hard? If God loves those terminally ill patients, why God doesn’t make them die
peacefully? If we respect life, shouldn’t we respect the lived to make their own decision?...
thought. …[2] To consider the medicine resources, the terminally ill patients cost the
majority of the medical resources. They are wasting the public resources in the society.
The government should do our utmost to help those who can be cured but not dilapidate
public medicine resources to the terminally ill patients… (Student F, Argumentation).
In the first paragraph, Student F sounded like Mr. Yang’s family or friend. She agitatedly
spoke for his rights by using parallel structure of questions. Her insider’s caring identity
intuitively emitted strong emotions on this controversial issue. However the latter discussion in
the second paragraph, Student F sounded like a detached outsider and unconsciously used “our”
to project her position in line with the government or the third party. Unlike Student E who
conditioned identities in response to writing needs, Student F juggled between identities of
“emotional self and “academic self” and “outsider and insider.” Without rhetorical strategy,
Student F’s multiple perspectives from hybrid identities, unfortunately, interfered with
intertextual coherence and projected subjective and unprofessional voice.
One thing is noteworthy while analyzing EFL writers’ voice/identity based on Ivanic and
Camps’ (2001) identity analysis. As an EFL writer, Student F lacks rhetorical knowledge to
appropriate her voice. Because Chinese, her mother tongue, has no tense marker on verbs,
Student F made tense errors in her English writing unconsciously. In the interview, I asked
Student F whether she attempted to create knowledge or to voice the “truth” by deliberately
evaluative words, such as “wasting” and “dilapidate” to express her position or value (Ivanic
and Camp, 2001, p.13). Unsurprisingly, Student F said she did not pay attention to tense when
she was writing, and she used present tense mindlessly without the intention of voicing truth.
Besides, she looked up dictionary for English words to help express her opinions, but among
the suggested synonyms, she could not perceive which one was more appropriate. She said,
“usually I pick the one which seems right and looks difficult” (interview, Student F). In other
words, Student F’s cold voice in the second paragraph may result from her limited English
literacy and immature rhetorical strategies. Therefore, I would like to argue that EFL writers’
voice and discursive choices should be used with caution to infer their textual identities.
Conclusion:
Theoretical and Teaching Implications:
The traditional L2 writing instruction in general emphasizes practices of low road transfer
(writing skills) but draw little attention to high road transfer. This ability of high-road transfer
that affects ways of one’s information sensitivity, reasoning, organization and interpretation
encourages the development of expertise (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000).
Incorporation of service learning into writing offers situated learning which demands
practices of experience transfer. Thus, writing can be raised from level of language practice to
Service learning impacts on EFL writers’ experience transfer and identity construction.
Hence, writing incorporated with service learning encourages learning of transformation as
well as acculturation. Moreover, service learning and writing are reciprocal. The service
experience broadens student writers’ writing spectrum, enriches their perspectives and
hybridizes their textual identities on one hand; on the other hand, writing requires writers to
cognitively link service experience to their existing knowledge, which helps reformulation of
information and reconstruction of existing knowledge. Writing also encourages students’
ethnographic inquiry as well as community participation.
To help students’ experience transfer, besides idea prompting questions, teachers can
encourage students’ self reflection, group discussions, brainstorming and reading. S-L
students, while working on-site, should be observant to details and actively interact with
people in the community. Teaching S-L writing courses, teachers may need to emphasize
writing ideas of transition, coherence, voice and academic writing style in order to help L2
writers construct a coherent textual identity.
Since it takes time for one to acculturate a different community, the positive impacts of
S-L on writing demand patience and practice. Therefore, more longitudinal research of S-L in
the future is necessary. Moreover, how S-L can be incorporated with difference courses to
facilitate experience transfer, and how experience transfer benefits learners’ learning are the
REFERENCE: REFERENCE:REFERENCE: REFERENCE:
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., and Yee, J. A. (2000). How Service-Learning
Affects Students. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California.
Batchelder, T. H. & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic
learning and service: Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of
Adolescence, 17, 341-355.
Billig, S. H. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service-learning: The evidence builds. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81, 9, 658-664.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience and School. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning with
additional material from Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D. and Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.),
Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. National Academy Press:
Washington.
Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan
Journal of Community Service-Learning, 2, 112-122.
Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: making meaning of
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
American Educator, 18, 1, 32-42.
Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading-writing
relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245-266.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the
crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning,
and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glasser, (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power
relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14, 3, 283-296.
Dean, T. (2000). Writing Partnerships: Service-Learning in Composition. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Davi, A. (2006). In the service of writing and race. Journal of Basic Writing, 25, 1, 73-95.
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E. & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on college students.
Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 4, 5-15.
Eyler, J. & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco, CA:
Eisterhold, J. C. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second
language learners. In Second Language Writing: research Insights for the Classroom (Ed.)
Kroll, Babara. Pp. 88-101. Cambridge University Press.
Flower, L. (2002). Intercultural inquiry and the transformation of service. College English, 65,
2, 181-201.
Furco, A. (1994). A conceptual framework for the institutionalization of youth service
programs in primary and secondary education. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 395-309.
Furco, A. (2003). Issues of definition and program diversity in the study of service-learning. In
Studying Service-Learning: Innovations in Education Research Methodology (Eds.).
pp.13-33. Shelley H. Billing & Alan S. Waterman. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers, Mahwah: NJ.
Gray, M. J. (1996). Reflections on evaluation of service-learning programs. NSEE Quarterly,
21, 8-9, 30-31.
Gray, M.J., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, Jr. R. D. and Geschwind, A. (2000). Assessing
Service-learning. Change, 32, 2, 30-39.
Handley, K., Clark, T., Fincham, R. & Sturdy, A. (2007). Presarching situated learning:
Participation, identity and practices in client-consultant relationships. Management
Hesser, G. (1995). Faculty assessment of student learning: outcomes attributed to
service-learning and evidence of changes in faculty attitudes about experiential education.
Michigan Journal of Community Service-learning, 2: 33-42.
Himley, M. (2004). Facing (up to) ‘the stranger’ in community service learning. College
Composition and Communication. 55, 3, 416-438.
Heuser, L. (1999). Service-learning as a pedagogy to promote the content, cross-cultural and
language-learning of ESL students. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 17, 1,
54-71.
Howard, Jeffrey, P. F. (1998). Academic Service Learning: A Counternormative Pedagogy.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73 21-29.
Howard, J. (2003). Service-learning research: Foundational issues. In Studying
Service-Learning: Innovations in Education Research Methodology (Eds.). pp.1-12.
Shelley H. Billing & Alan S. Waterman. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
Mahwah: NJ.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Ivanic, R. & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing.
Jones, S. R., & Hill, K. (2001). Crossing high street: Understanding diversity through
community service-learning. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 3, 204-216.
Jones, S. R. & Elisa, S. A. (2004). Enduring influences of service-learning on college students’
identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 2, 149-167.
Kendrick, J. R., Jr. 91996). Outcomes of service-learning in an introduction to sociology course.
Michigan Journal of Community Service learning, 3, 72-81.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4, 2, 193-212.
Kraft, R. J. (2002). International Service Learning. In Learning to Serve: Promoting Civil
Society through Service Learning. Maureen E. Kenny, Lou Anna K. Simon, Karen
Kiley-Brabeck, & Richard M. Lerner (Eds.). pp. 297-314.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F. & King. D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and
classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational
Mastrangelo, L. S. & Tischio, V. (2005). Integrating writing, academic discourses, and service
learning: Project renaissance and school college literacy collaborations. Composition
Studies, 33, 1, 31-53.Ministry of Education in Taiwan (2008).
http://english.moe.gov.tw/content.asp?CuItem=9407&mp=10000
Miller, J. (1994). Linking traditional and service-learning courses: Outcome evaluations
utilizing two pedagogically distinct models. Michigan Journal of Community
Service-learning, 1, 1, 29-36.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-learning.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 19-32.
Perkins, D. N. & Salmon, G. (1988). Teaching for Transfer. Educational Leadership, 46,
22-32.
Powermaker, H. (1966). Stranger and Friend: The Way of an Anthropologist. New York:
Norton.
Salommon, G. & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When
and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 2, 149-169.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information. 13,
65-93.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge
得報告
得報告
得報告
得報告
日期： 99 年 9 月 10 日
一、 參加會議經過
本屆會議有許多來自世界各國的知名學者如： Carole Edelsky, Mark A. James, Ann M. Johns, Mark Warschauer, Dana Ferris, Christine Tardy, Paul Kei Matsuda 和 Gail Shuck. 本次會議主要探討第二外語寫作未來發展的問題、 方向與看法，探討題目包羅萬象，如: the future of second language writing; assessment, EFL writing in schools genre, defining "generation 1.5", treatment of error in second language writing, plagiarism and legitimate textual borrowing, and the interface between second language acquisition and second language writing. 許多學者不約而同認為未來寫作發展方向將會 更多元。透過電腦科技的寫作將會日益普及，因此寫作教學的重點應該包含寫 作與電腦 literacy 的發展，老師應該重視學生寫作認知的啟發與聽說讀寫的交 互影響。 除此之外，多元檢測的方法也應該開發並重視。在會議結束後，主辦 單位按傳統舉行了招待茶會。 與會學者專家齊聚一堂，在輕鬆愉快的氣氛中交 流心得感想。這是一個非常有品質，可以學到東西，可以與學者社交，非常值 得推薦的好議會。 計畫編號 NSC 98-2410-H-004-135 計畫名稱 融入「服務學習」於大學英文寫作課程 出國人員 姓名 劉怡君 服務機 構及職 稱 國立政大學 外文中心 助理教授 會議時間 98 年 11 月 5 日至 98 年 11 月 7 日 會議地 點
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.
會議名稱
(中文)
(英文) Symposium on Second Language Writing: The Future of Second Language Writing.
發表論文 題目
(中文)
(英文)“Incorporation of Service Learning in College English: Impacts on L2 Writers’ Invention Process.”
Mark Warschauer 報告了電腦與寫作的教學與學習相關的歷史與未來的 展望。 其中，特別強調低消費、無線上網、可攜式功能的 netbooks 和 smartbooks; 可供教與學的自由軟體, Web 2.0 工具如 blogs 和 wikis， 以
及它們對寫作的影響。 MaWarschauer 教授也提及了未來人工智慧結合的作 文評閱軟體，以及社經環境如何影響使用這些科技軟體的人與學習情境。 Warschauer 教授是加州大學爾灣分校數為學習實驗中心的主任，也是教育與 資訊系的教授。他的介紹與見解，使聽眾瞭解了未來寫作教學上科技扮演的 角色。 Mark A. James 認為寫作教育的基礎目的是希望學生能有將力將寫作技能轉 換到不同的領域使用。這個目標牽涉到學習轉換的認知過程。然而學習轉換並非 學習的反射動作，可以自然產生。James 以此研究主軸探討了四個問題：什麼是 第二外語寫作的學習轉換？學習轉換與第二外語寫作的相互關係？如何研究第 二外語寫作的經驗轉換？未來研究的可發展方向是何?
我個人覺得 James 的學習轉換只著重於寫作認知低層次(lower level thinking)技能上的轉換，比如說使用 transition 的轉換，或某種文法句型的轉 換使用。他並沒有研究寫作上高思維(higher level thinking)轉換。低階思維 轉換需要熟練即可以完成多數轉換，但是高思維轉換卻牽涉更複雜的人腦認知記 憶的問題。雖然 James 沒觸及高思維認知轉換，但是聽完他的演講讓我對這個議 題產生了極大的興趣與好奇心，希望將來可以朝此方向研究探索。
Dana Ferris 講解了 error feedback 的研究方法、研究考量與未來研究 方向。由於 error feedback 對學生所產生的學習影響需要長時間醞釀，因此 Ferris 特別強調縱向長時間的質化研究非常重要，尤其是複製已經做過的研 究歷程，重新加以長時間觀察，才能在交叉比對後深入瞭解 error feedback 對學生在寫作上的實質影響。 我個人覺得學者們盡量避開討論學生性格在此議題中所扮演的角色，希 望以科學方式瞭解 error feedback 在寫作上的影響。然而，我很好奇不同性 格的學生也許對老師的錯誤更正有不同的反應，在此議題上尋找統一的結論 也許並非明智。即使是縱向長期的觀察研究，不同的研究對象在不同的老師 更正錯誤指導下也還是會有不同的反應與喜好。也許這些變數就是此議題充 滿爭議性色彩的原因吧?
三、 建議
第二外語寫作領域中台灣的學者並不多，因此針對台灣學生寫作的相關 研究也不多。老師在寫作課程教學中，只能憑藉經驗或以其他國家的寫作研 究為參考。然而不同的文化、學生組合與語言造成不同的需求與問題。全盤 接收美國外語寫作研究與教材，常會造成許多問題。最普遍可見的是寫作老台灣學者投入研究，才能改善。台灣各大學 (應用)英語系應多開設第二外 語寫作課程，以培育未來人才。
五、攜回資料名稱及內容
帶回了會議議程與手冊。 裡面有每個場次的時間與內容簡介。同時也拿了 許多講義與作者使用的考目錄，如:
Mark Johnson 的 Planning Sub-processes and Second Language Writing; Matsuda & Tardy 的 Voice in academic writing; Phil Benson & Alice Chik 的 Language learning and autonomy in the age of new literacies; Neil Johnson 的 Concept-based instruction and second language writing; Sachiko Yasuda 的 Email dialogue in genre/task based L2 writing classroom; Norman Evans 的 Error Correction in ESL writing…等等。
六、其他
此次行程收穫頗多，尤其是找到自己喜歡的主題與未來可能研究的方向。 在會議中，也認識了來自各國的學者，彼此留下聯絡訊息，使我覺得研究上 多了一些資源與支援。其中，期刊主編們的報告討論也讓我更瞭解投稿上的 應注意的細節、投稿的重要技巧，和如何選擇恰當的期刊投稿等。明年的 Symposium on Second Language Writing 會在台灣台北舉辦，非常期待再 次的加入參與。
計畫名稱：融入「服務學習」於大學英文寫作課程 量化 成果項目 實際已達 成數（被 接受或已 發表） 預期總達 成數(含實 際已達成 數) 本計畫 實際貢 獻百分 比 單位 備註（質 化 說 明：如 數 個 計 畫 共 同 成 果 、 成 果 列 為 該 期 刊 之 封 面 故 事 ...等） 期刊論文 0 1 100% 預 定 一 篇 投 稿 ＇ ＇ 英 語 教 學＇＇, 以將研究成果與教學 方法與國內相關學者教師分享 討論. 研究報告/技術報 告 0 0 100% 研討會論文 1 0 100% 篇 ＇ ＇ Holistic Learning of Academic Writing: Constructing Writing Identity through Service Learning. ＇ ＇ The 26th Conference of English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. 第二十六屆中華民國 國際英語文教學研究研討會. 國立清華大學外國語言學系. 論文著作 專書 0 0 100% 申請中件數 0 0 100% 專利 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 件 件數 0 0 100% 件 技術移轉 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 碩士生 0 0 100% 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 國 內 參與計畫人力 （本國籍） 專任助理 0 0 100% 人次 期刊論文 0 1 100%
The Impact of Service Learning on l2 Writing: Experience Transfer and Identity Construction. Journal of Second Language Writing. 國 外 論文著作 研究報告/技術報 告 0 0 100% 篇
研討會論文 2 0 100% accepted). ＇＇＇Knowledge Construction and Transformation: Incorporation of Service Learning in Academic Writing.＇＇ American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Atlanta, GA, USA. NSC: 98-2410-H-004-135-
＇Liu, Y. C. (November, 5-7, 2009). ＇Incorporation of Service Learning in College English: Impacts on L2 Writers＇ Invention Process.＇ Symposium on Second Language Writing: The Future of Second Language Writing. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. NSC: 98-2410-H-004-135- 專書 0 0 100% 章/本 申請中件數 0 0 100% 專利 已獲得件數 0 0 100% 件 件數 0 0 100% 件 技術移轉 權利金 0 0 100% 千元 碩士生 0 0 100% 博士生 0 0 100% 博士後研究員 0 0 100% 參與計畫人力 （外國籍） 專任助理 0 0 100% 人次
之成果如辦理學術 活動、獲得獎項、 重要國際合作、研 究成果國際影響力 及其他協助產業技 術發展之具體效益 事項等，請以文字 敘述填列。) 使台灣英語寫作教學與研究領域更寬廣. 成果項目 量化 名稱或內容性質簡述 測驗工具(含質性與量性) 0 課程/模組 0 電腦及網路系統或工具 0 教材 0 舉辦之活動/競賽 0 研討會/工作坊 0 電子報、網站 0 科 教 處 計 畫 加 填 項 目 計畫成果推廣之參與（閱聽）人數 0
