教育部教學實踐研究計畫成果報告
Project Report for MOE Teaching Practice Research Program
計畫編號/Project Number：PGE107083
學門分類/Division：通識
執行期間/Funding Period：2018/08-2019/07
大學教育之英語寫作提倡與應用
Promoting and Applying English Writing in College Education
大學英文（三）：寫作一（ETP 專班）/ 大學英文（三）：寫作二（ETP 專班）
計畫主持人(Principal Investigator)：張瀞文 Vicky Chang
執行機構及系所(Institution/Department/Program)：國立政治大學外文中心
大學教育之英語寫作提倡與應用
Promoting and Applying English Writing in College Education Abstract
The importance of reading, speaking, listening, and even grammar aspects of English have often been stressed in the college education in Taiwan (Chen & Tsai, 2012). However, seldom do schools or teachers emphasize the English writing ability of undergraduate students (Chang et al, 2009). Two major reasons can be attributed for the cause of this. The first, from a students’angle, is due to students’ fear in English writing (Lin, 2009), the boredom in structured essays (Chia at al, 1999), and the lack of English writing competence (Cheng & Chen, 2009, Escamilla 2009, Yeh, 2009). The second factor can be explained from a teacher’s perspective where college instructors are not
willing to include written English tasks in their courses (Chia et al 1999). This project proposal is to raise college students’ interests in English writing. Students will be taught under a student-centered environment the structure of academic paragraphs and essays, as well as have the chance to engage themselves in creative English writing throughout a one-year period. The final two products of this project will be a recorded group debate and a school magazine. Videos of the group debate will be used as reference for future creative class activities. The school magazine will be written and published by subjects enrolled in the two courses to introduce and promote NCCU to foreign
visitors. The magazine will be distributed in and around campus to inform foreigners of the wonders and issues that are currently happening around them. Through this project, students will engage in actively applying what they have acquired in class to real life. Another principle objective of this project is to inspire teachers of relative fields to integrate English writing tasks in their course designs. This can be achieved through the gatherings of informal opinion sharing meetings, class observations in the two project-implemented courses, and a final workshop presenting the outcome and findings of this project. A pre-and post-survey will be conducted at the beginning of the course and upon the completion of the project. Qualitative data will be computed and analyzed to compare subjects’ progress and interests towards English writing.
目錄
Research Motive and Purpose ……… 1
Literature Review …………...……… 1
Research Methodology ………...……… 2
Teaching and Research Outcomes ………..… 4
References …………...………..…… 8
1. Research Motive and Purpose
This project intends to familiarize students with the structure of English written paragraphs and essays. The elements of a paragraph and the different types of essay formats are introduced, followed by group and individual writing practices. In addition to presenting the fundaments of English writing, this proposal also sets the increase of students’ motivation and enthusiasm towards the written language as its main objective.
Besides aiming at promoting English writing to college students, the post-workshop at the end of the year will focus on advocating an integration of the written English in college courses. Via inviting language teachers to discuss and share the problems and difficulties encountered during the process of teaching English writing, they will be more familiar with how to improve their own lectures. The connection and support from colleagues will indeed boost teachers’ confidence and willingness to add writing activities in their own classes.
The design of this proposal will include the original aspects of previous taught writing courses. During the first semester, students will be exposed the structure of a paragraph followed by four types of essays. A final exam is given at the end of the Fall semester to assess students’ progress. The second semester will continue with the introduction of two remaining essay genres. Instead of a using a final exam to evaluate the growth and ability of students, one midterm and one final project is added. The former requires students to debate in groups, while the outcome of the latter project is production and issue of a school magazine.
The post-course workshop will serve as a means for the principle investigator to share and display the results of this project to trigger teachers’ interest in English writing teaching.
2. Literature Review
English education has always been emphasized in the education system in Taiwan (Chen & Tsai, 2012). At a high-educational level, the principle to enhance a student’s language competence constitutes of four areas, listening, speaking, reading, and writing. However, only was it the recent decade did educational reforms stress the importance of academic English writing skills in college English (Chang et al, 2009). Although only fewer than 4 percent of the total population in the nation employ English as a means for daily communication, the belief that a high command of the
language leads to one’s success in an academic and professional career is held wildly (Chen, 2010; Tsao, 2011). Escamilla (2009) asserts that for English second language learners, the word-level skills of language (e.g., decoding, spelling) are much more likely to be at equal levels as native English speakers, whereas text level skills (e.g., writing) seldom reach the same degree as English speakers. Hence, the promotion of English writing activities in college courses should be further emphasized.
While educators maintain this concept in mind, students, on the other hand, show a lack of writing ability due to the several reasons. The first factor is that students are not familiar with the
composition structure of English speakers. According to Cai (1993), the formal Chinese writing derived from the ancient eight-legged essays. For Mandarin speaking learners, they tend to use a Chinese way of constructing their essays with “qi-cheng-jun-he”, which literally means the
introduction, the elaboration on the topic, the transition to another point, and the conclusion. This is different from the English writing format where it is structured as a tree, branching out, which is further proven by Wang et al (2005). Another distinction between Taiwanese students and native writers which researcher have observed is that the arguments in essays of Taiwanese students were both less extended and less complex. This implies that compared to native writers, Taiwanese undergraduate students are limited in expressing themselves in argumentative structures (Cheng & Chen, 2009). Furthermore, research has also revealed that Taiwanese college students lack in the usage of citations and long quotes, as well as show a low variety in citation formats (Yeh, 2009). All these are some of the many issues with the writing ability of Taiwanese college students. A direct
and immediate approach must be implemented to assist students to improve in the written language. A second account for a low English writing learning rate in the higher education in Taiwan is that students often view the written format of the language to be tedious and boring (Worde, 2003; Rollinson, 2005; Lin, 2009). Students have claimed that with the requirements to follow certain writing formats and structure, the aspects of creativity and the sense of freedom is somewhat limited. In previous studies, students also perceive that listening and speaking skills as being more
interactive and most needed, while English writing is what they favor the least (Chia at al, 1999). Nonetheless, the competence of being an eloquent writer has often been regarded as a major factor of success in various fields (Zhu, 2004; Wise, 2005)
In order to achieve a boost in students’ interest in English writing and decrease their fear of it, certain measures should be employed. Researchers have suggested numerous methods to attain this goal, including integrating team projects, utilizing peer feedback, and learner-centered learning. In regard to teamwork, Woo and Reeves (2007) believe that meaningful interactions within groups contribute to the understanding of the knowledge and the sharing of experiences and ideas. This is further proven by Dornyei and Malderez (1997), along with Shih (2011) addressing that team based or project based learning activities can promote active learning. As for applying peer feedback in the course, various papers have favored the use of it to lower the anxiety with students learning (Rollinson, 2005; Lin, 2009; Tsai, 2009). A final means to generate students’ interest and
participation within the process of learning is to allow them to be educated in an environment where the learner is the center of the course (Brandl, 2002; Brich &Volkov, 2007). With focuses on
learner-centered learning, the knowledge, skills, experiences, and perspectives students have can be shared to facilitate motivation.
Examining the other side of this issue, teachers are the providers of English writing practices. While most believe that it is critical for college students to possess the ability of formal English writing, seldom do teachers integrate it into their courses. In a research conducted by Chia et al (1999), 45 percent of college instructors occasionally asked their students to write assignments in English, 45 percent never did so, and only 10 percent marked that they did this often. Moreover, as You (2004) has observed, English lecturers in Asia tend to only emphasize instructing the correct form when teaching English writing. The time for individual student feedback and further self-improvement as a teacher is rather limited. Hence, extra support for writing instructors from the University and the government should be considered. As underlined before, the importance of English, especially English writing is essential for future developments of students. The encouragement on the teachers’ end to promote English writing in their courses must be taken seriously.
3. Research Methodology
The main issue of a low English writing rate in college English can be separated into two principle aspects, students’ view and teachers’ perspective. In the standpoint of students, they lack the ability to proficiently conduct their thoughts into English writing. They also have little willingness to devote themselves in the written language, given the absence of real life connections with formal English writing. From a teacher’s angle, not having former practice teaching English writing and the anxiety with after-class assignment grading have all brought about the reluctance of combing writing in courses.
The research employs a pre-course survey to gather participants’ data for research and analysis. After more than half a year of writing course exposure and writing practices, students will engage themselves in two in-class projects to demonstrate what they have learned. A final post-course survey will be conducted to collect the participants’ data after a year of writing instructions and training. Both sets of data will be cross-compared and analyzed.
related fields and potential students interested in English education will be invited to participate in this gathering. Ideas and experiences will be shared to inspire and stimulate further improvements in the teaching of English writing in college courses.
The project will be applied to two separate writing classes. The design of the one-year course is separated into two parts, including English III – Writing I (English Taught Program) for the Fall 2018 and English III – Writing II (English Taught Program) for Spring 2019.
The materials that are selected are collected and modified by the teacher throughout the 11 years of teaching writing. The school’s online WM5 system will be employed to serve as a resource
uploading platform and a means for after class communications. Other than the teacher’s feedback, peer reviews will be applied in class. Rubrics for the teacher, as well as peer evaluation forms for the students will be used when reviewing students’ work. Written and verbal comments will be given.
Cross-class communication will occur with other teachers that are instructing the same course. The informal exchange of experience and ideas between teachers take place in meetings before and in between semesters. A post-project workshop will also be arranged to stimulate teachers’ ability and aspirations for teaching written English in the future. Moreover, class observations throughout the semester of how the project is implemented over the course of one year will be available for teachers who are interested.
The two writing classes each consists of 20 students who are regarded and classified as English advanced students in the University. They are selected to attend the 2-year English Taught Program (ETP) in NCCU with the provision of a high score in English exams. Students pay an additional expense other than their regular registration tuition fee in order to attend the program. Due to the self-willingness of joining the program, students are regarded as English learners with a higher incentive to improve themselves.
Students who are enrolled in the English III – Writing I and II courses are sophomores from diverse departments and colleges. Although their enrollment in the ETP began in their freshman year, oral and aural English skills were the main focuses in the first two semesters. It is anticipated that none of the students have received formal English writing training prior to this course.
Students have had at least two hours of English course instructions for their first year in college and are required to take another two-hour English writing course for their sophomore year. A total of 72 hours of English instructions were given for oral and aural training. Similarly, another 72-hours instruction will be given on English writing.
A pre-course survey (see appendix 1) will be conducted in class during the first orientation session. The survey is divided into three parts, examining the students’ English ability, motivation, and the usage of the language. Comparisons between the three categories will be investigated and analyzed. A post-course survey (see appendix 2) will be executed at the end of the two–semester writing course. The survey again is divided into three parts, examining the increase in students’ English ability, motivation, and the usage of the language. Comparisons between the pre and post-course survey will be examined and analyzed. Via constant comparison analysis, the qualitative data collected will be carefully dealt with.
For the pre-course survey data collected in the beginning of the semester, the mean, range, and standard deviation of each question item will be calculated. A cross-comparison and analysis will be conducted to examine the relationship between the three categories, namely students’ English ability, motivation, and the usage of the language.
Upon the completion of this project, the data from the post-course survey will be inspected. Again, the mean, range, and standard deviation of each question item will be calculated. A
cross-comparison and analysis of the three areas (students’ English ability, motivation, and the usage of the language) will be examined.
A final data analysis will be executed to compare and contrast the correlations between the pre-course and post-course survey. The growth or decline rate of each item will be calculated, compared, and analyzed.
4. Teaching and Research Outcomes (1) Teaching procedures and results
Fourteen sophomore students from the College of Social Science and eleven sophomore students from the College of Communication were enrolled in these two ETP Writing courses for the entire year. Students were given a teacher-made handout booklet at the beginning of the semester, along with other supplementary material throughout the course. The students started the class with a self-evaluation survey on their own English ability in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Although being placed in the advanced English class by their department, most students did not feel confident towards their English writing ability. While they claim to have high confidence in their listening (3.31/4) and reading (3.24/4), their writing ability (2.79/4) is significantly lower. The results are shown as below.
Chart 1 Student self-reported proficiency of English ability
Students also reported difficulties in various areas of English writing. Chart 2 indicates the difficulties students had when writing in English. Overall, students found content development (3.41/5) and vocabulary usage (3.31/5 and 3.45/5) more challenging, whereas grammar (2.72/5 and 2.48/5) and mechanics (2.1/5 and 2.0/5) were of lower difficulties.
Chart 2 Difficulties in English writing
various types of introductions and practiced generating effective openings for their writing. An emphasis on topic sentence writing, as well as methods for producing powerful concluding sentences was also illustrated at the beginning of the course. An assignment on paragraph writing was given to allow students to practice the theories learned. An outline, draft, and final version were collected and provided with oral and written feedback for students to refer to and improve on. Upon the completion of paragraph structure, students were then presented with three different writing genres, including narratives, process paragraphs and essays, followed by cause and effect paragraphs and essays.
For narrative writing, the teacher presented the basic elements of story writing, including character (protagonist, antagonist, foil, confidante) and plot (exposition, rising actions, climax, falling actions, and denouement) development, along with the forming of the setting (physical and chronological). The class then analyzed numerous stories and movies to better understand the concepts. An in-class story writing task was conducted to familiarize students with different writing techniques and literary devices that are used in literature. A final project of a creative story was a assigned to evaluate what students had learned from the unit. Again, an outline and draft were collected, read, and returned to the students for improvement. A final version was then submitted to be evaluated. The process paragraph and essay was to follow. Students were introduced to the chain format of English essay / paragraph organization. The structure of the process genre was analyzed first using a recipe, followed by two sample paragraphs. An in-class activity on “how to plan a party” was used to facilitate students understanding of this unit. Students were then asked to participate in a
speaking activity were they performed as experts on a TV show. In groups of three, they explained and taught the steps of certain undergraduate related issues. The final activity for this unit was an individual transition use challenge, awarding the winner with a drink.
The last unit that was touched upon this semester was the cause and effect genre. Two writing formats, the chain and the block, were highlighted to the students. A teacher-led in-class practice to familiarize students with the structure was done with the example of the causes and effects of World War One. This was succeeded by a student-centered discussion on the reasons and influences of an over-populated graduated student society. The intentions and impact of student studying in graduate school were analyzed and reorganized to fit a block format essay structure. The use of parallelism was learned and practiced.
The final component of this semester was the final exam. Students were asked to take an
eight-paged test to assess the students’ progress for the semester. Five sections were contained in the test, consisting of vocabulary recognition, paragraph unscramble, sentence rewrite, essay analysis, and paragraph writing.
During the second semester, students continued with what was left off from the precious semester. Starting with the structure and format of contrast and comparison essays, the class experimented with everyday issues such as comparing clothing brands, movie stars, as well as global political leaders. The concept of parallelism was once again emphasized and elaborated on for brainstorming ideas.
The second major essay genre that was introduced was the argumentative essay. Students learned different methods for putting forth their points. The concept of addressing counterarguments followed by rebuttals was initiated during this process. Students applied three major approaches to refute opponents of their claims. An individual two-paged assignment was given as homework. Students were to outline their points of view. This was then corrected and provided with oral and written feedback by the teacher. Upon receiving the feedback, students were asked to draft their argumentative essay in accordance with a point-by-point format. Peer review is provided during this stage to stimulate learning within the class. A final evaluation is implemented by the teacher. Not only do students practice this in the written form, an oral group debate is constructed. Students in
teams of three debated on six self-chosen topics, including The Language Graduation Threshold should be banned in universities in Taiwan, Priority Seats should be abolished, Nuclear energy should be substituted by other more sustainable energy, Pension funds should not be lowered, Military service should be compulsory, and The death penalty should be abolished. The Oxford-Oregon debating format was employed.
The last writing genre which was demonstrated was the classification essay. The class was divided into five groups of two to three members, in which diverse issues were analyzed and put into categories while adopting the golden rules for classifying. The groups then presented their categories and the characteristics of their divisions to the class.
Starting from the second half of the semester, a final class project was launched. Numerous magazines were brought to class and analyzed. The various sections and the design of a magazine were further explored. A class leader was elected during this period to facilitate and maintain all class discussions. Other roles responsible for the magazine production were also distributed. The teacher, now, steps aside and acts as guidance and arbitrator for any decisions made. The target audience, magazine name, theme, and sections were determined by the class. Students were then to write the outline of their articles. This was read by at least another peer, a section editor, and the editor and vice editor in chief. The teacher provided feedback to the writers, which is then used to form the draft of the magazine article. Again a second and third draft is written and proofread by numerous peers and teacher before a final version is settled. With the completion of the magazine, a copy of it is given to all students of this course. A final ETP Night Magazine Exhibition was held to present to the school what was achieved throughout the course of a year.
The last component of this research was a post-survey that was administrated at the end of the year. An effective twenty-four surveys were collected at the completion of this course. As can be seen in Chart 3, participants responded that the course was helpful for writing structures (4.17/5) and generating supporting details (4.25/5). The course was not as effective in the selection of an appropriate topic (3.67) and vocabulary (3.71/5).
Improvement in Writing Aspects Overall Score out of 5
Choosing an appropriate title 3.67
Effective introductory paragraph 4.13
Using topic sentence in paragraphs 4.17
Giving enough supporting details or examples in body 4.25
Logical conclusion 3.96
Appropriate use of transition words (e.g. 'moreover') 3.83
Complete development of the topic 4.04
Logical development of your ideas 4.08
Correct Tense 3.71
Correct grammar of sentences 3.75
Correct punctuation (eg. ’’’’, -) 3.96
Appropriate use of vocabulary to express ideas clearly 3.71 Correct use of citation (quoting an author) 4.17
Chart 3 Improvements in English writing (2) Afterthoughts of instructor
From the quizzes, assignments, and final exam, we can see that the students have acquired the basics of English writing. All students are now familiar with the difference between English and Chinese compositions. The structure of a paragraph, as well as the chain and block format of an essay were points that were emphasized on throughout the semester.
Most performed outstandingly for the vocabulary quizzes, but with the accumulation of over 150 words, they may not do as well in the vocabulary part of the test. Most students can reflect and
utilize the grammar and word phrases that were taught in the course to produce meaningful sentences. However, minor errors still occur.
The students were introduced to the APA format of academic English writing. The methods of inserting citations were illustrated in the course. Students still have difficulty in the mastery of paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting. Students also show unfamiliarity of the APA style. All students are now capable of producing a paragraph and essay that follow the English writing format. Students may need more training in advancing their sentence structures, as well as consolidating their ideas and supporting them with examples. Moreover, students are now able to apply what they have acquired into an authentic project, a magazine.
(3) Feedback from students
Two sets of feedback were collected. The first was on the participants that took the ETP writing course. A total of twenty-four effective surveys were available. On a scale of 1 to 5, participants rated their agreement on ten statements that were related to the course design. From Chart 4, the majority of students rated the class as helpful (4.58/5) and the teacher’s feedback was effective (4.71/5). The participants also believed that the collaborative writing project, class magazine, greatly increased class interactions (4.58/5). What is worth pointing out is that most students view their peers’ feedback as not as useful (4.00/5). Although a peer feedback training was devoted in the course, additional effort and further research to explain this phenomenon is needed.
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Statements Overall Score out of 5
The class helped in the overall improvement of my writing. 4.58 The magazine project reflected what was learned in the course. 4.17 The magazine project increased class interactions. 4.58
Conducting the magazine was enjoyable. 4.25
Producing the magazine gave me a sense of accomplishment. 4.50 A final project (magazine, blog, newsletter…etc.) should be
incorporated in future writing classes for juniors. 4.00
The teacher’s feedback was useful. 4.71
My peers’ (section editors, coordinator…etc.) feedback was useful. 4.00 I would recommend the ETP Program to friends and juniors. 4.17 I would recommend the ETP writing class to friends and juniors. 4.50
Chart 4 Students’ feedback
The second set of student feedback came from the student visitors that joined the ETP Night
exhibition. The overall satisfaction rate was significantly high. 65 out of 87 visitors gave the event a rating of 5 out of 5. In prior to the event, students’ familiarity towards ETP was at 3.38. However, upon attending the event students knew more about the program (4.14/5). From the survey, we can also see that 36 out of 87 students were very willing to participate in ETP and that 22 out of 87 people rated it as a 4. The ETP Night event overall publicized the ETP Program.
Statements Overall Score out of 5
Satisfaction towards the event 4.67
Familiarity towards ETP prior to the event 3.38
Familiarity towards ETP after the event 4.14
Willingness to participate in ETP 4.03
5. References
Atay, D., & Kurt, G. (2006) Prospective teachers and L2 writing anxiety, Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 100-118.
Birch, D. &Volkov, M. (2007). Assessment of online reflections: Engaging English second language (ESL) students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 291-306.
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language teaching curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87-107.
Cai, G. (1993). Beyond bad writing: Teaching English composition to Chinese ESL students. Paper presented at the College Composition and Communication Conference, San Diego, CA.
Chang, W. C., S. G. Joe, M. L. Liaw, H. N. Yeh, C. L. Chern, Y. L.You & C. C. Huang (2009). . [English education policies and effects on teaching]. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China.Hsinchu: National TsingHua University, 19–20
Chen, S. and Y. Tsai. 2012. Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004–2009). Language Teaching 45, no. 2: 180–201.
Chen, S. C. (2010). Multilingualism in Taiwan.International Journal of the Sociology of Language 205, 79–104.
Chen, Y. (2002). The problem of university EFL writing in Taiwan. The Korean TESOL Journal, 5 (1), 1-22.
Cheng, F. W. & Y. M. Chen (2009). Taiwanese argumentation skills: Contrastive rhetoric perspective. Taiwan International ESP Journal 1, 23–50.
Chia, H.-U.,Johnson, R.,Chia, H.-L.,Olive, F.(1999). English for college students in Taiwan: A study of perceptions of English needs in a medical context. English for Specific
Purposes,18(2),107-119.
Derntl, M. &Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005).The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning.The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111-130
Dornyei Z. & Malderez A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System, 25, 65– 81.
Escamilla (2009). English Language Learners: Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners—Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research (41), 432–452.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999).Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publication.
Hiltz, S. R. &Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56-59
Kearsley, G. (2011). The Theory Into Practice Database. http://tip.psychology.org
Lee, S. Y. (2001). The relationship of writing apprehension to the revision process and topic preference: A student perspective. In P.H. Chen & Y. N. Leung (Eds.), Selected papers from the tenth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 504-516). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane. Lin, G. H. C. (2009). An Exploration into Foreign Language Writing Anxiety from Taiwanese
University Students’ Perspectives.2009 NCUE Fourth Annual Conference on Language, Teaching, Literature, Linguistics, Translations and Interpretation.
Lou, S. J., Wu, S. C., Shih, R. C. & Tseng, K. H. (2010).Adoption of blogging by a Chinese language composition class in a vocational high school in Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 898-916.
Min, H. T. (2009). Peer review training and teacher feedback. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China.Hsinchu: National
TsingHua University, 625–629.
Neo, T. K., Neo, M. & Kwok, W. J. (2009). Engaging students in a multimedia cooperative learning environment: A Malaysian experience. In Same places, different spaces.Proceedings ascilite
Auckland 2009.
Pai, C. W. & H. C. Liou (2009).Collaborative writing with blogs and wikis in EFL college context.The Proceedings of 2009 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane, 368–377.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class.ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. Topping, K. J. (2000). Peer assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English
writing?Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 829–845.
Tsai, Y. C. (2009). Asynchronous peer review and revision: On written argument. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM.
Tsao, C.H. (2011). English for specific purposes in the EFL context: A survey of student and faculty perceptions. The Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 126–149.
Wise, K. (2005). The importance of writing skills. Public Relations Quarterly, 50, 37-48. Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15-25.
Worde von, R. (2003).Students’ perspectives on foreign language anxiety.Inquiry, 8(1), 21-40. Yeh, C. C. (2009). Student researchers’ citation behavior.Taiwan Journal of TESOL 6, 1–21. You, X. (2004). The choice made from no choice: English writing instruction in a Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 97–110.
ZhuW. (2004). Writing in business courses: an analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills, English for Specific Purposes, vol. 23 2 (pg. 111-35)
6. Appendix
Appendix A National Chengchi University Writing Course Survey
Department: Gender：□Male □Female
English proficiency. Check (V) for the appropriate choice.
1. Listening □Advanced
□High- intermediate
□Intermediate □Beginner □Poor
2. Speaking □Advanced
□High- intermediate
□Intermediate □Beginner □Poor
3.Reading □Advanced
□High- intermediate
□Intermediate □Beginner □Poor
4.Writing □Advanced
□High- intermediate
□Intermediate □Beginner □Poor
5.English Proficiency Tests TOEFL ibt ______ IELTS ____ TOEIC_____ GEPT_____ Others_____
What is your motivation of taking the course? Check (V) for the appropriate choice.
Strongly Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. Learning to write journals □ □ □ □ □
2. Learning academic paper writing skills & practices (eg. Citation, paraphrasing, summarizing)
□ □ □ □ □
3.Working on grammar □ □ □ □ □
4. Working on increasing vocabulary □ □ □ □ □
5. Working on punctuation □ □ □ □ □
6. Reviewing good writing samples □ □ □ □ □
7. Exercises on textbook or handouts □ □ □ □ □
8. Group/Pair work writing tasks □ □ □ □ □
Are these difficulties you encounter when writing in English? Check (V) for the appropriate choice
Very Difficult Difficult Neutral Slightly Difficult Not Difficult
2. Effective introductory paragraph □ □ □ □ □
3.Using topic sentence in paragraphs □ □ □ □ □
4. Giving enough supporting details or examples in body □ □ □ □ □
5. Logical conclusion □ □ □ □ □
6. Appropriate use of transition words: (e.g. 'moreover') □ □ □ □ □
7. Complete development of the topic □ □ □ □ □
8. Logical development of your ideas □ □ □ □ □
9. Appropriate dividing of paragraphs □ □ □ □ □
10. No run-on sentences □ □ □ □ □
11. Correct Tense □ □ □ □ □
12. Correct prepositions (eg. with, to, at) □ □ □ □ □
13. Correct Articles (a, an, the) □ □ □ □ □
14. Correct grammar of sentences □ □ □ □ □
15. Correct spelling □ □ □ □ □
16. Correct punctuation (eg. ’’’’, -) □ □ □ □ □
17. Appropriate use of vocabulary to express ideas clearly. □ □ □ □ □
18. Use of synonyms. (Using different words for same meaning)
□ □ □ □ □
19. paraphrasing □ □ □ □ □
Appendix B National Chengchi University Writing Course Survey
Department: Gender：□Male □Female
After taking the class, does the course fit your anticipation? Check (V) for the appropriate choice.
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1. Learning to write journals □ □ □ □ □
2. Learning academic paper writing skills & practices (eg. Citation, paraphrasing, summarizing)
□ □ □ □ □
3.Working on grammar □ □ □ □ □
4. Working on increasing vocabulary □ □ □ □ □
5. Working on punctuation □ □ □ □ □
6. Reviewing good writing samples □ □ □ □ □
7. Exercises on textbook or handouts □ □ □ □ □
8. Group/Pair work writing tasks □ □ □ □ □
After taking course, how much have you improved in fulfilling these requirements? Check (V) for the appropriate choice
Improved a Lot Improved Improved a Bit Neutral No Improvement
1. Choosing an appropriate title □ □ □ □ □
2. Effective introductory paragraph □ □ □ □ □
3.Using topic sentence in paragraphs □ □ □ □ □
4. Giving enough supporting details or examples in body □ □ □ □ □
5. Logical conclusion □ □ □ □ □
7. Complete development of the topic □ □ □ □ □
8. Logical development of your ideas □ □ □ □ □
Improved a Lot Improved Improved a Bit Neutral No Improvement
9. Appropriate dividing of paragraphs □ □ □ □ □
10. No run-on sentences □ □ □ □ □
11. Correct Tense □ □ □ □ □
12. Correct prepositions (eg. with, to, at) □ □ □ □ □
13. Correct Articles (a, an, the) □ □ □ □ □
14. Correct grammar of sentences □ □ □ □ □
15. Correct spelling □ □ □ □ □
16. Correct punctuation (eg. ’’’’, -) □ □ □ □ □
17. Appropriate use of vocabulary to express ideas clearly. □ □ □ □ □
18. Use of synonyms. (Using different words for same meaning)
□ □ □ □ □
19. paraphrasing □ □ □ □ □
20. Correct use of citation (quoting an author) □ □ □ □ □
21. Knowledge of avoiding plagiarism □ □ □ □ □
How much did the following types of feedback help you to develop as a writer? Check (V) for the appropriate choice
Very Useful Useful Slightly Useful Not Useful No Feedback
2.Teacher responds about the content and organization of your writing □ □ □ □ □ 3.Classmates make comments about content and organization of your
writing □ □ □ □ □
4.Teacher tells you to get your final papers proofread by a competent colleague
