ࡻᄬିጯ English Teaching & Learning 32. 2 (Summer 2008): 1-37
An Overview of EFL Writing Research in Taiwan
Hsien-Chin Liou
National Tsing Hua University hcliu@mx.nthu.edu.tw
Abstract
Ever since Chen (陳玉美, 1998) conducted a survey on 14 years of EFL writing research in Taiwan, little retrospection of its development has been systematically conducted in this country. In this paper, the literature of three recent years (2005 to 2007) as published in four local journals and proceedings of three major English teaching conferences was examined with the aim to identify the major thrust of the articles, and to point out needed areas for future research. The surveyed studies were classified into four main categories based on their focus: text-oriented, writer-oriented, reader-oriented, and instruction-oriented. They were further classified from the perspectives of problem areas, population examined and research methods used. Last, the results were compared with two surveys conducted in North America. Unlike what Chen (1998) observed, the teaching of writing has become more autonomous, and demonstrates a good array of innovative instructional interventions. Influenced by corpus linguistics and English for specific purposes, an increasing number of papers have concentrated on text analyses of reference corpora or comparisons of reference vs. learner corpora. Future directions point to the exploration of reader-oriented research, writing context research such as workplace English, and teacher education. More rigorous research designs and more effectively written data interpretations that are aligned with efforts in the international community are needed.
Key Words: EFL writing research, writing contexts, writing instruction, reader-oriented research, ESP, workplace English
INTRODUCTION
Writing and writing instruction take place in numerous contexts ranging from K-12 classrooms to workplaces. In North America, writing researchers from both L1 composition studies and L2 writing research have responded to changes in the increasingly broader contexts of writing and writing education in this decade, with rapid changes of technological advances included. Two recent review articles (Juzwik et al., 2006; Silva & Brice, 2004) attest to the development and expansion of writing research in a multiplicity of directions, and in diverse fields such as educational psychology, English, business and technical communication, and the neurosciences. Juzwik and her colleagues examined 1502 journal articles published between 1999 and 2004. Their corpus covers writing contexts in North America, including L1, L2, ESL, and foreign language contexts. They looked at the literature from the perspectives of problem areas, population, and research methods used. Silva and Brice discussed the development of L2 writing based on refereed journal articles, book chapters, and books published since 2000. The taxonomy adopted in Silva and Brice’s review article included types of basic and applied research. Additionally, pedagogical implications and assessment of the current state of the field and its future directions were discussed. According to Silva and Brice, L2 writing research had become mature and sophisticated enough by 2004 to be considered a specific discipline.
In Taiwan, Chen (陳玉美, 1998) conducted a survey on fourteen years of EFL writing research. Since Chen’s review, little retrospection on the development has been provided. The purpose of the present study is to fill this gap by reviewing recent literature on writing research in Taiwan, comparing the results with the aforementioned two recent surveys, and drawing directions for future research.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
RESEARCH METHOD
In this paper, the literature of three recent years (2005 to 2007) as published in four local journals and proceedings of three major English teaching conferences was examined with the aim to identify the major thrust of the articles, and point out needed areas for future research. The journals included English Teaching & Learning, Taiwan
Journal of TESOL, Studies in Language and Literature, and Curriculum and Instruction Quarterly (《課程與教學季刊》). The
three major conference publications1 included (a) Proceedings of the
International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics (shortened as Proceedings of 2005/2006/2007 TEFL-AL),
(b) Proceedings of the International Conference on English Teaching
and Learning in the ROC (shortened as Proceedings of the 22nd/23rd/24th ROC-TEFL), and (c) Selected Papers from the International Symposium on English Teaching (shortened as Selected papers from 14th, 15th, 16th ETA)2. They formed the EFL writing corpus for the current study.
Hyland’s (2007) categorization of writing research was adopted in this study to conduct a first-cut analysis of the corpus. He classified L2 writing research into three major types: text-oriented research, writer-oriented research, and reader-oriented research. A special feature which was not accommodated by Hyland’s categorization but was prominent in the current study is a persistent focus on the use of different instructional intervention types in EFL writing classes. Thus, a fourth category, instruction-oriented research, was added to classify the cases in the corpus. Furthermore, like the methods used in Juzwik et al. (2006), problem areas, population, and research methods were
1
An important writing conference took place in 2006 at Tamkang University (Tamkang 2006 International Conference on Second Language Writing. December 1, 2. Tamsui: Tamkang University, Dept. of English). However, the conference did not publish full papers of the presentations. To our regret, we decided not to include this important event.
2
Selected topics such as peer review and English use outside of the classrooms were traced through the ROC-TEFL proceedings between 1998 and 2007 for spot checks or corroboration.
used to look into the corpus. The accumulated literature of EFL writing as demonstrated between 2005 and 2007 is productive: in total, 126 full papers were included in our EFL writing corpus (see Appendix for a complete list).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Major categorizations from different perspectives are presented in a numerical manner, followed by comments. Highlights of selected individual studies from the EFL writing corpus are also discussed for illustration purposes. Table 1 shows the classification of topics in the corpus.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
Table 1
Major Classification of Topics in the EFL Writing Corpus
Categori -zation Text-orien- ted research Writer-orien-ted Research Reader-orien-ted Research Instruction-oriented Research Cases in the corpus Chang, 2005 Chang, 2006 Chang, 2007 Chen & Wang, 2006 Fan, et al., 2006 Fan & Hsu, 2007b Hung & Huang, 2006 Hsieh et al., 2006 Hsin & Wu, 2007 Hsu & Tien, 2006 Huang & Vong- pumivitch, 2007 Huang, 2006 Huang & Chang, 2007 Ku et al., 2006 Kuo, 2006 Lai et al., 2006 Lai, 2005 Lang, 2007 Lau, 2005a Lau, 2005b Baker, 2006 Y. M. Chen, et al., 2006 Chen & You, 2007 Chen & Wang, 2006 Chiu & Cheung, 2005 Y. H. Chiu, 2006 Chuang, 2006 Huang, 2007 Joe & Wu, 2007 Lee & You, 2005 Li et al., 2007 Liao, 2005 Liao, 2006 Lin & Teng, 2006 Lin & You, 2006 Shei, 2005 Tseng & Liao, 2006
H. C. Wang, 2005 Wu & Chen, 2007 Yang & Joe, 2007 Yang & Chang, 2006
Chen & Liao, 2007
Wu, 2007
C. Y. Chen, et al., 2005
Chen & Cheng, 2006 Chen, 2006
Cheng, 2007 Chi, 2005 Chiao, 2006 Chiu & Chang, 2006 C. Y. Chiu, 2006 Chuang & Joe, 2006 Cosby, 2005 Fan & Hsu, 2007a Fang, 2005 Fang, 2006a Fang, 2006b
Hsieh & Liou, 2005 Hsieh et al., 2006 Hsin & Chen, 2005 Hsu, 2007
Huang, 2005 Huang & Liou, 2005 Kuo & Huang, 2005 Kuo et al., 2005 Lai & Chung, 2005 Lai & Vongpumivitch, 2007
Lan & Hung, 2005 Lan & Hung, 2007 Lan & Wang, 2007 Lang, 2005 Lee et al., 2006 Liang, 2007 Liaw, 2007 Lin & Liou, 2006 Lin & Liou, 2007a Lin, 2007a
Table 1 (continued)
Lau, 2006 Lau, 2007 Lee & Chen, 2006 Liao & Chen, 2006 Lin, 2005 Lin, 2007b Lin & Hsu, 2005 Lin & Kuo, 2006 Lin & Liou, 2007b Lin & Liou, 2007c Liu & Kuo, 2005 Okanlwawo n, 2006 Ma & Kuo, 2007 Pablo, 2005 Tsai & Yu, 2005 Tseng, et al., 2007 Wu, 2005b Yang & Kuo, 2006 Yang, 2005 Yao, 2007 Yeh, 2007 Yi, 2007 You et al., 2005 You, 2007 Ling, 2005 Liou, 2007 Liou, et al., 2005 Liu & Shih, 2007 Min, 2006b Min, 2007b Myers, 2005 Peng, 2007 Sun & Hsu, 2006 Tsai, 2005 Tsai, 2006 Tsai & Liou, 2006 Tsai, 2007 Wang, 2005 Wang, 2006 H. C. Wang, 2007 P. L. Wang, 2007 Wu, 2005a Wu, 2005 Yao, 2006 Yeh, 2005 Yeh, 2006 Yeh et al., 2007 You & Joe, 2006 Zhao, 2007 Total 42 (33.3%) 23 (18.3%) 2 (1.6%) 59 (46.8%) Grand total =126
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
Among the 126 full papers, 46.8% focused on instruction-oriented research, followed by those of text-oriented (33.3%) and writer-oriented (18.3%) research. Only two articles (1.6%) were under the category of reader-oriented research. Unlike Chen (1998), the teaching of writing has become more autonomous, demonstrating a good array of innovative instructional interventions. A good variety of writing skills or methods were examined: weblogs, electronic portfolios, automatic essay graders, semantic mapping, predictable books, instruction on plagiarism, peer review, teacher commentary, and book-making, to name just a few. Influenced by corpus linguistics and English for specific purposes, an increasing number of papers have concentrated on text analyses of reference corpora or comparisons of reference vs. learner corpora under the category of text-oriented research. The dominant genre for corpus analyses was research articles published in professional journals, although recently other types of writing such as textbooks, news, and acknowledgements in theses have started to attract attention. The issues addressed also demonstrate a great variety ranging from academic vocabulary, lexical bundles, rhetorical strategies, politeness strategies, topical structure analysis, connectives/topic fronting, knowledge claims, authorial identity, argumentative writing, passive voice, self-mention, etc. Under the topic of writing processes, metacognitive strategies and reading-to-write were most investigated; reader-awareness was also examined.
To understand the different distribution of problem areas investigated in North America and Taiwan, based on the surveys by Juzwik et al. (2006) and ours, the 126 articles in our corpus were re-classified according to the taxonomy used in Juzwik et al. (2006). Problems studied in an article are defined as “focal questions or hypotheses driving the research” (Juzwik et al., 2006: 460). Results are shown in Table 2. Not surprisingly, writing instruction (27.3%) and genre (21.9%) were the two dominant categories in our study, unlike context research in the data of Juzwik et al. (26%). This corresponds to what is shown in Table 1: instruction-oriented and text-oriented research occupied the major bulk of the corpus. No articles in our corpus addressed the issue of disability and writing, and
few of them touched upon elements of writing. Comparatively, more papers on technology were found in our study, which was again expected as our data included articles published from 2005-2007, and Juzwik et al.’s review was based on 1999-2004 data. Such a focus may point to the prevalence of computer hardware and software in schools of various levels in Taiwan, particularly in higher education. Interestingly, percentages were similar concerning the topic of individual writing processes.
Table 2
Comparison of Distribution of Problems in North America and Taiwan
Categories of Problems in Juzwik et al., 2006 Percentage US Data 1999-2004 Percentage Taiwan Data 2005-2007 Context & writing practices (local or global) 26% 5.7% Multi/bilingualism & writing (L1/L2) 21% 10.4%
Writing instruction 19% 27.3%
Elements of writing: grammar, speech acts, etc. 16.5% 1.6% Individual writing processes 14.6% 13.2%
Genre 14.3% 21.9%
Disability & writing 12.0% 0.0%
Technology 8.8% 14.0%
Assessment 7.7% 3.4%
Literacy modalities: writing & other
skills or visual art 6.5% 2.5%
Under the context category, classroom or more specifically peer group contexts were mostly researched in Taiwan. Global contexts and writing practices from a historical or cultural perspective were rarely examined. Disability and writing and visual art were also seldom investigated.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
Population and Research Methods in the Corpus
Statistics in Table 3 point to categorization of (a) subjects/participants or objects such as scholars, teachers, college students or others’ studies, and (b) research methods adopted in the corpus. Like Liou (2004), who examined distribution of the English teaching literature across all topics in Taiwan, college students were again the major participant group examined (40%). Liou found that 53.8% of the reviewed studies among all English teaching topics investigated learning of college students. Unique in the EFL writing corpus, corpora and texts have attracted local scholars’ interest as the second major area of inquiry (23.6%). Academic writing demands in higher education in Taiwan have been on the rise in the past few years, and thus the graduate student population was viewed as an important group to investigate (10.9% of articles in the corpus). In Juzwik et al. (2006), the adult group was ranked first, and included graduate students, professionals (e.g., business writers, government writers, teachers, researchers, journalists), and others in institutional and community contexts (e.g., hospitals, prisons).
Table 3
Distribution of Participants and Research Methods in the Taiwan Corpus
Similar to the rankings in Juzwik et al. (2006), discourse analysis and interpretative methods were used more often by researchers in Taiwan. Yet, interpretative methods were the dominant in their study (51.4%), followed by discourse analysis (25.1%). Experimental or quasi-experimental group designs were used in 10.8% of their studies, and 8.8% used correlational designs such as factor analysis, cluster analysis, or regression analysis. Historical research occupied only 2.1% in their study; no cases were found in our corpus.
In this study, corpus and text analyses were the dominant research method (30.9%), followed by qualitative approaches usually
Participant/object Statistics Research Method Statistics College students 40% Discourse analysis 30.9% Graduate students 10.9% Qualitative/text
analysis
20%
Both college/graduate students
1.8% Mixed methods 17.3%
High school students 7.3% Questionnaire survey 11.8% Primary school
students (including preschoolers)
2.7% Quantitative analysis 7.3%
Corpus/text 23.6% Case study 0.9%
Instructional material 2.7% Design approach 2.7%
Teachers 2.7% Review 0.9% Scholars 0.9% Reflective/anecdotal/pe rsonal/how-to 8.2% Others’ studies 0.9% Case report/proposal 1.8% Workshop/how-to 4.5%
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
mixed with some kind of text analysis (20%), and genuine mixed methods (17.3%). If we merged the questionnaire survey method with quantitative analysis (quasi- or experimental design), they came to 19.1%, close to the qualitative analysis and mixed methods categories. In Liou (2004), the quantitative approach, including the questionnaire method, was the major research method adopted if we looked at the literature of English teaching across all topics. This is different for writing research; apparently, EFL writing with an inherently different nature from English learning in general, requires its own distinctive research orientation.
Likewise, in Juzwik et al. (2006), a considerable focus on genre was found at the postsecondary level (80.9% vs. 19.1% for the lower age group), but for younger student writers, literacy modalities and individual writing processes were the focus. In our corpus, the picture is different. Ten percent of 126 papers focused on the lower age group (high school plus primary school students), and the problems addressed ranged widely across instruction, genre, technology, assessment, and literacy modalities. Claimed as the important period of development of literacy for preschoolers to twelfth graders, Juzwik et al. (2006) suggest that the P-12 level should attract more researchers’ attention as identity formation and language acquisition happen at the same time. Closely aligned with this tendency in North America, the EFL writing research at the P-12 level in Taiwan is scarce (only 10%) compared with EFL teaching in general (Liou, 2004, 25.6%).
Specifically for L2 contexts, Silva and Brice (2004) conducted a survey based on journal articles, book chapters, and books published since 2000, and focused on two major categories of research: basic and applied research, with the latter centering on instructional principles and practices, and the former, phenomena of L2 writing. Under each category, they divided the categories into more sub-categories and commented on the general trend under each. They found a wider range of subjects, which were distributed across different cultures or countries, was investigated than that in the past. Under each sub-category, greater diversity was also noted. For instance, “a move from the ‘general essay’ to more particular genres
and from school-sponsored writing to that composed in ’real-world’ contexts” (p. 72) was found under the written texts sub-category. The trend is similar to the findings of the current study as the text types examined were expanded from research articles to include learner corpora and acknowledgements sections of theses, among others. Again, the real-world contexts of L2 writing have not drawn enough researchers’ attention in Taiwan. Yet, the distribution of sub-categories between that surveyed in Silva and Brice and that in the current study shows a compatible picture as shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of Topics Addressed in Silva & Brice’s Study and the Current Study
Silva & Brice’s (2004) Basic Research The Present Study
Composing processes Y
Written texts Y
Assessment Y
Applied Research
Content-based writing instruction Y
Voice/identity Y Reading/writing Y Computer/technology Y Grammar/vocabulary Y Peer interaction Y Plagiarism Y Teacher response Y Literature/film Y
Note: *Y: yes, the topic was examined in the EFL writing corpus of the current
study.
Numeric results are not provided in Silva and Brice so Table 4 demonstrates whether topics of a particular sub-category appear or not in the EFL writing corpus in Taiwan. All topics had been
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
examined although the proportions in each area were different and the nature of each sub-category could have been framed completely differently. For instance, the purpose of FL writing is a topic rarely addressed in Taiwan.
Selected Issues Addressed in the EFL Writing Corpus
Several trends were noted as the EFL writing literature was examined: writing development of young learners, surveys of writing problems, technology use, and writing centers. Primary school students’ learning of English in terms of literacy development was emphasized; this has been the case since around 2000, when the government introduced English education at the elementary school level. To illustrate, Lee and Chen (2006) compared the performance of 28 seventh graders with various prior writing experiences regarding metasyntactic, reading comprehension, and writing (including an essay and story-telling) tasks. It was found that better task performance such as longer mean sentence lengths and more complex sentence structures was strongly associated with more writing experiences, confirming a strong correlation between writing development and English learning in general.
Other scholars surveyed the general writing problems of either undergraduate or graduate students. Wu and Chen (2007) surveyed 184 English majors (who were sophomores or juniors) concerning writing difficulties and strategy use. They found that more strategies were employed in the writing stage as opposed to the planning or editing stage. English proficiency was found to be associated with strategy types, but not with strategy frequency, nor with writing difficulties. First language interference was found to be the more serious difficulty at the discourse level, followed by weak vocabulary at the sentence level. In Liao (2006), 117 undergraduate with English as their majors and 68 graduate students who were at the stage of revising their theses were recruited in order to assess their needs and problems with academic writing. Data were collected through a questionnaire and interviews. Several writing problems and difficulties were identified: narrowing down topics, defining the purpose, collecting relevant sources, evaluating relevance of sources,
paraphrasing and summarizing sources, and synthesizing and organizing sources.
Technology has been widely applied to enhance writing instruction. For instance, Huang (2006) examined how an essay grading system, MyAccess, was used to detect errors in the compositions of 34 third-year English-majors. As the students worked through the revision process, 428 essays were produced. Examination of these essays identified a total of 5330 errors. Among the main categories, the usage error type was ranked first [missing modifier (55%) was ranked at the top of all sub-categories] with grammar the lowest (9%). Note this does not mean students made fewer grammar errors (object of verbs was the most frequent error); it is likely that
MyAccess as a computer program may have missed some of the errors
more easily detected by teachers and more difficult for the computer to identify. Wang (2006) adopted the method of instant messaging dialogue journals with two fourth graders for peer-peer and student-instructor dialoguing, and examined sentence length and spelling accuracy of student writing. After one month, both aspects showed improvement. The use of technology by English teachers is becoming more and more common in Taiwan. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), which originated as a distinctive field, is now utilized in the teaching of various language skills and content areas; many cases of CALL as applied to other aspects of language teaching have been merged with other topics. In the near future, more examples of innovative technology infusion into different English curricula will appear, and thus require more rigorous empirical research to uncover effective means of technological application.
More innovatively, Hsu (2007) proposed a self-access learning center for writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC). In spite of being an initial attempt, this proposal points out needed research for the practical implementation of writing centers. As the number of writing centers located in university settings in Taiwan has increased in number recently, this type of inquiry can be valuable. Although students occasionally need guidance from the tutors in a writing center, one of the benefits associated with WAC centers is the increased likelihood of developing learner autonomy outside the
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
classroom. Campus-wide needs assessment and institutional support were important elements of Hsu’s proposal.
A critique of several selected articles is provided in the present paper. These subjectively chosen studies are presented for illustration purposes only.
After a series of studies on peer review (Min, 2003, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007b), Min3 (2007a) investigated the underlying stances in peer commentary in depth. Through her previous papers, effective training procedures were devised and became mature through empirical validation. Eighteen second-year English-majors participated in her two-month revision-oriented feedback training, which involved a four-step procedure. A textual analysis of students’ written commentaries indicated they moved from a prescriptive stance to a collaborative stance post training. Based on the peer response literature, such a stance is beneficial to peer review. Solidly grounded in a thorough literature review, Min’s paper shows a sophisticated control over a niche a researcher should try to fill as well as over the research method and data interpretation. Peer review training inherently is a pedagogy-based topic because training, educating, and nurturing effective learning strategies involves knowledge and skills which every good English teacher desires to have. “Stance” is an important notion in L2 writing pedagogy which local scholars rarely address. A myth shared by some local scholars is that we are better off not repeating an over-researched topic. To a certain extent, this may
3
A good review of important peer response studies including those conducted in Taiwan is provided by Chou (2000), who did a careful investigation of peer negotiations during the peer response group activity. To our regret, she did not continue this line of research afterwards, nor did Min (2003) continue this line of inquiry from here. Otherwise, a fuller picture of EFL peer review studies concerning peer negotiation and training effects in Taiwan could be understood.
be true; however, few topics4 can be categorized as such because the development of English teaching particularly in an EFL context such as Taiwan is in its infancy.
Several problems noted in our corpus include a lack of support of past literature for particular topics, several kinds of writing problems, and under-researched topics. First, we are unsure if the topic of metacognition and EFL writing can find good support in recent issues of journals such as Journal of Second Language Writing or Written Communication. You (2007), after her initial efforts on the topic of metacognition and writing from 2000, recruited twenty-six English-major juniors to serve as participants in a study that examined the growth of writers’ metacognitive models. Grounded in the metacognition notion mainly from educational psychology, with a brief mention of language educators (excluding much earlier works before the 1990s), You reviewed several studies done in Taiwan mainly by students in a master’s program at Yunlin University of Science & Technology. It is perhaps worthwhile to question why important English teaching or writing journals have not published articles on metacognition in the past twenty years. Second, how the term “learner’s metacognitive model” was defined and used in You’s paper is unclear from the writing. The term appears on p. 163 without citation. It was found that the skilled writers’ metacognitive models were enhanced but the less skilled writers’ were not; how the models were enhanced is unclear. Another problem with this paper is a lack of numerical results to support claims such as “the more skilled writers are able to employ more regulatory strategies than less skilled writers” (p. 168).
In another example, the title of the article “an English Writing
Portfolio Project” (Lan & Wang, 2007) may be misleading if we
compare it with its content. Lan and Wang recruited sixty-three college students who were divided into an experimental group and a control group. The students were assessed by the General English
4
Based on my limited knowledge, perhaps the only articles “banned” from publication were morpheme studies in second language acquisition research conducted in the early 1980s, because this topic was viewed as over-researched.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
Proficiency Test (GEPT) as the pretest, the researchers’ self-designed posttest, and an attitudes questionnaire. The questionnaire was validated and its reliability was also checked, which was unusual across many studies published in Taiwan or internationally. They compared self- and peer assessment and use of personal writing portfolios through quantitative analyses and procedures, which is a good design. But the information concerning writing portfolios was too scarce to obtain a full understanding about how portfolio assessment was implemented in this case.
The last example shows various kinds of writing problems. Fan and Hsu (2007) re-opened an avenue, Topical Structure Analysis (TSA), for teaching coherence, which was a topic introduced by Connor and Farmer (1990) and applied to a single-subject case study (Chiu, 2004), students of Spanish-as-L1 (Simpson, 2000), and in Taiwan (Chao, 2002; Chi & You, 2004). To a certain extent, this is exciting as the analysis skill can be applied in teaching for revision on certain rhetorical patterns (narrative and descriptive essays as in Chiu, 2004). However, in writing, some expressions may be overstated in this paper; on p. 287, Fan and Hsu stated: “Till now, [TSA] … has been widely adopted…” and on the same page, “Although much work [of TSA] …in examining EFL writers’ coherence….” Compared with the literature on peer review which numbers over twenty studies, TSA research cannot be claimed as a major topic in L2, and even less so in the EFL writing area. The number of previous studies is not the only single reason supporting why another similar study should be conducted, but the novel insight a new study may add to an existing topic forms its significance or contribution to the EFL writing field. A minor point in the paper by Fan and Hsu concerns incorrect information given on the source of Chi and You (2004).
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
There is great vitality in the area of EFL writing research in Taiwan, as evidenced by the number of studies that have been reported in the last several years. However, the findings are far from satisfactory in providing a complete understanding about EFL writing and writing instruction in this country. The findings indicate that reader-oriented research was found limited in the EFL writing corpus. Reader-oriented research, according to Hyland (2007), emphasizes interaction between writers and readers, “looking at the ways writing is used by social groups and the concept of a discourse community” (p. 84). To engage readers in understanding patterns for different contexts and genres, he suggests three ways: genre portfolios, comparative tasks, and audience analysis.
Second, context research including mainly writing for the workplace, is sorely needed. The work by Shih and her colleagues (施 玉惠等, 1998) was an early and timely initiative; they surveyed needs by the industry concerning the specializations of industry, business-related areas, tourism, and mass media; they did not include the medical sector (but Silva and Brice (2004) did). Among the four skills, writing was comparatively less important. Based on the EFL writing corpus, such research efforts were not continued by scholars until 20075. The situation is different in other Asian contexts such as Hong Kong, Japan, and China among other areas of the globe. Based on data of English use in the workplace, Chew (2005), and Nickerson, Gerritsen, and van Meurs (2005) showcased where and to what extent English is used, and thus how these findings can help English learners in Hong King and Europe. Chew, drawing data from sixteen bank employees through interviews and questionnaire surveys, pointed out the observation that Cantonese was found to be used in spoken discourse, English, in written discourse; furthermore, large numbers of bank employees who are fluent in both languages are needed in the
5
The EFL writing corpus only included one paper on the Technological and Vocational Educational System (TVES) context (Lan & Hung, 2005). More papers on workplace English may exist in conferences focusing on TVES needs.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
market. Nickerson et al. (2005) surveyed more than forty respondents concerning English use in promotional genres (TV commercials, annual reports, corporate web-sites, and print advertising) in the Netherlands, France, and Germany, and found the results invaluable in raising student awareness of how English is authentically used in the workplace.
Targeted more at pedagogical practices, two studies launched pioneering projects on marketplace English and one study showcased legal English. With a case study in a leading Japanese company, Cowling (2007) emphasized needs analysis from different informant groups as essential input into syllabus design for their intensive workshop course. Based on a review of teaching of business English in China over the past 50 years, Zhang (2007) described an evolution from intuition-led, to content-based, and more research-based practices. Zhang emphasizes cultivation of expertise in the business field, not English skills plus discrete knowledge of the subject area, as essential for business English curriculum design. Focusing on micro-level interaction, Vuorela (2005) documented intercultural business negotiations based on data collected in a company-internal strategy meeting and a client negotiation situation. She pointed out that goals are the major factor that has a key impact on the two situations, among factors of seller and buyer behavior and business context. Ho (2007) insightfully points out the need of addressing legal English by illustrating cases in Hong Kong and the United States.
Third, a list provided by O’Brien (2004) points out possible avenues for future research. After a review of foreign language writing research based on the international literature, she suggested the following twelve specific questions for future research. Although some of the questions have been attempted in Taiwan, others provide a useful expansion of existing topics of interest such as number 5 below, or provide a critical stance toward a popular pedagogy as in number 4.
1. What is the role of classroom writing in the acquisition of a foreign language [FL]?
2. What can FL students learn from different types of written tasks? 3. What can FL students learn from practicing different genres of
4. Are process-oriented writing approaches fruitful in all FL teaching contexts, including secondary schools?
5. Is the interest in studying the sociopolitical dimensions of writing relevant to FL teaching contexts?
6. How can Kern’s reconceptualisation [2000] of teaching FL literacy be implemented?
7. When and why is it useful for FL writers to use their L1?
8. Are there grammar correction procedures that are beneficial to FL learners?
9. What is the relationship between teachers’ writing experience and expertise and the writing development of learners?
10. What is the relationship between previous FL learning experiences and writers’ attitudes and development?
11. What is the relationship between computer-mediated writing and the development of oral competence?
12. What are the contributions of face-to-face and computer-mediated feedback to the acquisition of writing skills in an FL? (p. 22)
Quite a few issues listed above have not been thoroughly explored in Taiwan; for instance, teachers’ writing experience and expertise (also emphasized in Liu, 2005), or technology use for oral competence or writing skills. England (2006) points out the needed research in ESP teacher education is needed. If we recognize the importance of workplace English for EFL writing research, it seems that teacher education should accompany its development. Along this line, the topic of critical writing should be explored as its implications help foster teachers as transformative intellectuals (Benesch, 2001; Canagarajah, 2002; Liou, 2007). Taiwanese professionals in writing may want to respond to challenges raised by Leki (2005): class size, definitions of writing goals, and teacher preparation. Along the line of critical writing, Leki also suggests that we question the “large institutional and individual investment required to teach L2 writing” (p. 79) and the aim of “making L2 writing enhance learner options rather than limit them” (ibid.). Context research may show its importance again here under this ethical and ideological challenge: it is not whether the teaching and learning of writing is important or not,
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
but in what context it is justified to make this important investment. Last, a note on the quality of research may draw our attention. More rigorous research design or even more sophisticated interpretations based on concrete findings which are aligned with efforts in the international community such as the Journal of Second
Language Writing or Second Language Writing Research (Matsuda &
Silva, 2005), are needed. Juzwik and her colleges (2006) support this: “If writing researchers examine and conceptualize writing as an activity involving meaning negotiation (e.g., among persons, texts, and contexts), then interpretation is essential to the work of writing research” (p. 470). Perhaps after most of these practical matters are resolved to a certain extent in Taiwan can we spare some thought to respond to a call by Leki (2003) as she observed from a global perspective: solving insularity (from cultural studies, post-modernism, and critical theory) and undertheorizing in order to push L2 writing research.
Scholars in Taiwan may want to learn more from exploring some of the above questions in order to shed light on local issues.
CONCLUSION
In this article, an overview of EFL writing research in Taiwan from 2005 to 2007 is demonstrated with analyses and personal comments. Classification of problems, population, and research methods was shown. Some selective issues were addressed. During the past three years, a great amount of research on EFL writing was evident, compared with the survey by Chen (1998). Still, there is room for further advancement and sophistication: more diversified topics including reader-oriented research, writing context research including workplace English, teacher education, and other associated but under-researched topics. There should also be more rigorous control over the quality of research in publications.
Due to time and resource limitations, we were unable to include a comprehensive search of master’s theses and doctoral dissertations
across many universities in Taiwan and TVES conference proceedings. Categorization of the literature is also meant to be tentative as overlapping or fuzziness did exist inevitably. Compatibility among review articles is problematic: Juzwik et al. (2006), Silva and Brice (2004), Liou (2004), and our study covered different numbers of studies conducted across different times. Understandably, identical approaches across these chosen review articles were almost impossible to reach; consequently, the results serve as a rough comparison. The critique of the selective studies and suggestions for future research are subjective and discuss the researcher’s personal perspective. Unlike that in Juzwik et al. (2006) where six researchers were involved, the present review lacks a second coder and thus strong internal reliability.
In spite of these drawbacks, it is hoped that this survey provides an updated picture of EFL writing research in Taiwan, and serves as an initial attempt for other scholars to engage in future constructive exchanges on EFL writing research. A variety of constituencies—including researchers, policy makers, funding agencies, professional organizations, educators, and teacher educators--would benefit from periodical reviews of EFL writing research in Taiwan. The achievements of EFL writing as demonstrated from 2005 to 2007 are encouraging as writing is indeed important for literacy development, and is one of the core elements in English curricula across different levels of schooling in this country.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project was partially funded by the National Science Council (NSCU96U-2411-H-007-033-MY3). Assistance from our
research assistant, Jacky Yu, is appreciated. Special thanks go to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
REFERNCES
6Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory,
politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and
multilingual students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Chao, K. H. (2002). Thematic progression in the argumentative
essays of EFL senior high school students. Unpublished master’s
thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, R. O. C. Chew, K. S. (2005). An investigation of the English language skills
used by new entrants in banks in Hong Kong. English for Specific
Purposes, 24(4), 423-435.
Chi, C. H. & You, Y. L. (2004). An analysis of text structures employed by EFL beginning writers (pp. 345-357). Selected
papers from the 13th ETA. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chiu, Y. H. (2004). Coaching a student to develop coherence based upon topic structure analysis: A case study. Journal of Language
and Learning, 2, 154-170.
Chou, M. C. (2000). Peer negotiations in an EFL writing classroom. In English, Soochow University (compiled). Proceedings of the
17th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the ROC
(pp. 90-107). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Connor, U. & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topic structure analysis as a revision strategy. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language
writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 126-139).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace courses at a leading Japanese company.
English for Specific Purposes, 26(4), 426-442.
England, E. (2006). Planning ahead—English for specific purpose teacher preparation for the 21st century (pp. 47-56). Selected
6
Short-hands on titles of local conference proceedings and omission of the publisher’s information (e.g., Taipei: Crane) are used in the references to avoid redundancy and save space for total words of the entire manuscript.
papers from 15th ETA. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Fan, G. Y. & Hsu, A. Y. (2007). Empower our learners as conscious writers: teaching topical structure analysis to doctoral students (pp. 285-295). Proceedings of 24th ROC-TEFL. Taipei: Taiwan ELT
Publishing Co., Ltd.
Ho, K. T, (2007). Teaching Legal English to English Second Language Learners: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 47-59). Selected
papers from 16th ETA vol1. Taipei: Crane.
Hsu, J. Y. (2007). Integrating a writing-across-curriculum program into a self-access learning center (pp. 455-464). Proceedings of
24th ROC-TEFL. Taipei: Taiwan ELT Publishing Co., Ltd.
Huang, S. J. (2006). A case study of EFL students’ writing errors on a web-based training (pp. 139-146). Proceedings of 2006
TEFL-AL. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Hyland, K. (2007). Working with writing: Understanding texts, writers and readers (pp. 77-86). Selected papers from the 16th
ETA. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R. K. (2006). Writing into the 21st century: An overview of research on writing, 1999 to 2004. Written
Communication, 23(4), 451-476.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lan, M. H. & Wang, K. P. (2007). The effects of an English writing portfolio project on writing attitudes and achievements of junior college students (pp. 465-479). Proceedings of 24th ROC-TEFL.
Taipei: Taiwan ELT Publishing Co., Ltd.
Lee, N. C., & Chen, L. M. (2006). The role of early English writing in ESL acquisition (pp. 219-224). Proceedings of 2006 TEFL/AL. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Leki, I. (2003). Coda: Pushing L2 writing research. Journal of Second
Language Research, 12, 103-105.
Leki, I. (2005). The challenges of teaching EFL writing (pp. 79-90).
Selected papers from 14th ETA.
Liao, M. T. (2006). Assessment of students’ needs and problems with academic writing in Taiwan (pp.255-263). Proceedings of 2006
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
TEFL-AL. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Liou, H. C. (2004). A review of recent language teaching literature in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 29(1), 1-21.
Liou, H. C. (2007). Changing electronic literacies and critical reflections for Taiwan’s EFL educators in the 21P
st
P century. In R. N.
Matzen, Jr., & J. Y. Cheng-Levine (Eds.), Reformation: The
Teaching and Learning of English in Electronic Environments (pp.
105-127). Taipei: Bookman Books, Ltd.
Liu, J. (2005). Understanding models in L2 writing (pp. 91-102).
Selected papers from 14th ETA. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (2005). Second language writing research:
Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlabum Associates.
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and
Learning, 27(3), 85-103.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
Min, H. T. (2006a). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141. (Min, 2006b, 2007a) in the
corpus below.
Min, H. T. (2007b). Writer perceptions of reviewer stances: A qualitative study. English Teaching and Learning, 31(3), 29-61. Nickerson, C., Gerritsen, M., & van Meurs, F. (2005). Raising student
awareness of the use of English for specific business purposes in the European context: A staff-student project. English for Specific
Purposes, 24(3), 333-345.
O’Brien, T. (2004). Review article: Writing in a foreign language: teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1-28.
Silva, T., & Brice, C. (2004). Research in teaching writing. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 70-106.
Simpson, J. M. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9, 293-309.
Vuorela, T. (2005). How does a sales team reach goals in intercultural business negotiations? A case study. English for Specific Purposes,
24(1), 65-92.
Wang, F. Y. (2006). A study of EFL elementary students’ writing process in instant messaging dialogue journals (pp. 364-371).
Proceedings of 2006 TEFL-AL. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Wu, Y. W., & Chen, M. C. (2007).Writing strategies and writing difficulties among college students of differing English proficiency (pp. 176-189). Proceedings of 24th ROC-TEFL.
Taipei: Taiwan ELT Publishing Co., Ltd.
You, Y. L. (2007). Investigating the growth of EFL writers’ metacognitive models (pp. 162-175). Proceedings of 24th
ROC-TEFL. Taipei: Taiwan ELT Publishing Co., Ltd.
Zhang, Z. (2007). Towards an integrated approach to teaching business English: A Chinese experience. English for Specific
Purposes, 26(4), 399-410.
Shih, Y. H., Su, S. F. & Lin, C. C. （施玉惠、蘇順發、林至誠） (1998). <由企業界對外語人才之需求探討應用外語科系課程之規劃 > [Planning of applied foreign language curriculum based on the needs of foreign language expertise in the industry] (pp. 59-80).
Selected papers from 15th ETA. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chen, Y. M. (陳玉美) (1998). <國內英文作文教學之回顧與展望> [Review and prospective of English writing instruction in Taiwan] (pp. 331-344). Selected papers from 15th ETA. Taipei:
Crane Publishing Co.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Professor Hsien-Chin Liou teaches at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of National Tsing Hua University. She has conducted research on CALL and specifically on Web 2.0 technologies and writing instruction.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
Appendix
The EFL Writing Corpus in Taiwan 2005-2007
1. English Teachers’ Association (compiled). 2005. Selected Papers
from the 14th International Symposium on English Teaching.
Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chen, C. Y. & Li, J. Y. & Lin, S. Y. Learning to write: Two group projects in college, 302-311.
Hsieh, W. M. & Liou, H. C. Text analyses and online material development for EAP graduate courses, 139-150.
Lai, S. J. Analyzing freshmen compositions from the aspects of organization and rhetoric, 394-404.
Lan, S. W. & Hung, C. H. TVES English teachers’ beliefs and course planning in writing instruction, 151-162.
Lau, H. H. “Important” used as an interaction marker in civil engineering journal articles, 228-236. (2005a)
Lee, Y. H. & You, Y. L. Exploring EFL writers’ self-regulation during the composing process, 237-249.
Liao, Y. F. EFL writers’ goals setting during writing: A protocol analysis, 405-416.
Lin, C. Y. & Hsu, Y. P. Patterns and difficulties in summarizing skills: A case study of Taiwanese college students’ academic writing, 417-426.
Ling, M. P. Borrowing the literacy canon as a bridge in a freshman English writing course, 443-451.
Liou, H. C., Kuo, C. H., Chang, J. S., Chen, H. J., & Chang, C. F. Web-based academic English course design and material development, 452-463
Liu, W. F. & Kuo, C. H. The use of passive voice in research articles, 163-171.
Myers, J. L. Televised fantasies: utilizing dream imagery for rhetorical training in writing classes, 131-138.
Tsai, C. H. Integrating oral and writing tasks in college ESP, 527-537. Tsai, P. H. & Yu, H. Y. A corpus-based study of children’s storytelling:
What is it all about then, 172-195.
Wang, H. C. Writing and reading strategies for teaching low-achieving students in college, 538-545.
Yang, H. H. The use of MAKE in native and non-native student writing, 581-588.
2. Same compiler and publisher throughout the three proceedings, which do not appear again. 2006. Selected Papers from the
15th International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei:
Crane Publishing Co. vol1, vol2. (articles in both volumes
were included)
Chang, H. C. Typical English errors in the use of articles produced by Chinese students, vol 2, 1-11.
Chen, C. H. & Wang, Y. F. Politeness strategies in Chinese and English argumentative writing: A preliminary study, 250-260. [from volume 1 when unspecified in this appendix]
Chiao, T. L. Application of blogging in EFL writing class: A case study, 336-344.
Chiu, L. C. & Chang, M. Y. Using predictable books to teach writing in an EFL setting, 345-358.
Chuang, Y. H. & Joe, S. G. Applying semantic mapping in EFL writing instruction, 359-370.
Fan, Y. S., Hsu, A. Y. & Yang, Y. C. Topical structure analysis of doctoral students’ writing: By means of the General English Proficiency writing test, 371-377.
Fang, Y. C. Teacher-student conferences in a college composition classroom: An EFL context, 35-43. (2006a)
Lau, H. H. Text bundles in academic research papers, 431-438. Lin, M. H. & Kuo, C. H. The rhetorical functions of adverbial
principal clauses in scientific research articles, 459-466.
Lin, Y. T. & You, Y. L. Investigating experienced and less experienced EFL writers’ metacognitive knowledge of English writing, 490-502.
Sun, T. F. & Hsu, A. Y. The effectiveness of instruction on avoiding plagiarism, 525-533.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
students’ perceptions and performance on paraphrasing and plagiarism, 183-191.
Yang, S. C. & Chang, C. F. Sociocultural approach to EFL students’ writing process in a writing task. vol2, 192-200.
3. 2007. Selected Papers from the 16th International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. vol1, vol2.
Chang, Y. C. Narrative structures and grounding manifestations: A comparative study of EFL and ESL college students’ English written narratives. Vol 2, 1-6.
Chen, H. J. & Liao, M. T. Developing audience awareness of narrative writing through the task-based approach, 315-324. Chen, Y. L. & You, Y. L. Less experienced EFL writers’ knowledge
and self-awareness of coherence in English writing, 335-346. Fan, Y. G. & Hsu, A. Y. Voicing learners’ problems in technical
writing: Analysis of science majors. vol2, 86-94. (2007b) Hsin, C. L. & Wu, W. S. Pragmatics and cultures—A comparison
between Chinese and English. Vol 2, 114-118. Huang, P. C. A metacognitive approach to the task demands
encountered in business English writing, 255-265. Lin, M. C. & Liou, H. C. The developments of college learners’
academic vocabulary in writing: Appropriateness and accuracy. Vol 2, 184-192. (2007c)
Lin, Y. Y. From Writing to composing: Taiwan college students’ multimedia L2 writing in the weblogs, 474-483. (2007b) Liu, S. Y & Shih, Y. C. Using weblogs for college EFL writing: A
case study. Vol 2, 212-222.
Ma, S. Y. & Kuo, C. H. A corpus-based approach to L2 learner language, 484-492.
Tsai, H. M. Examining the techniques used to reduce EFL writing anxiety, 534-544.
Yang, C. C. & Joe, S. G. How EFL writers integrate the information into their texts in a reading-to-write task, 563-574.
Yao , C. K. (姚崇昆) <「引用」在「食品營養」期刊論文中的運用： 英文與中文之比較研究> [Citations in journal articles of the
nutrition discipline: a contrastive study of English and Chinese usage], 190-201.
Yi, C. C. Constructive controversy vs. concurrence seeking: Effects on EFL persuasive writing, 587-602.
4. Applied English, Mingchuan University (compiled). 2005. The
Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on TEFL & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane.
Cosby, M. W. Teaching essay writing to ESL students, 130-140. Hsin, I. L. & Chen, P. L. A comparative study of teacher evaluation
and peer evaluation on the English writing of a senior high school, 478-489.
Kuo, Y. C. & Huang, D. F. From reading to writing: a book-making co-learning project in a sixth grade classroom, 241-247. Kuo, Y. H., Chen, Y. C., Lin, Y. F., Chen, J. J. & Hsieh, C. N. The
study of students’ perceptions on the peer evaluation on the writing course: a case study at Ming Chuan University, 248-263. Lang, H. L. An investigation of ESL students’ journal writing,
264-273.
Pablo, D. B. A review on contrastive rhetoric: a useful tool in order to improve our students’ written discursive competence in EFL, 320-330.
Wang, P. L. The effects of using wordless picture books to promote writing competence and sense of story of vocational college students, 400-407.
Wu, W. S. Using blogs in an EFL writing class, 426-432. (2005)
Wu. S. R. Connectives and topic-fronting devices in academic writing: Taiwanese EFL student writers vs. international writers,
417-425. (2005b)
5. Same compiler and publisher. 2006. Proceedings of 2006
International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chen, C. M. Integrating the Internet into an English composition class: Blogs, instant messaging, and e-mail, 79-85.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
professional writers and Taiwan English majors in academic writing, 460-467.
Chen, Y. M., Yang, P. H. & You, Y. L. EFL experienced and
inexperienced writers’ composing processes and metacognitive monitoring, 69-78.
Hsieh, W. M., Tsai, Y. C., Lin, M. C., & Liou, H. C. Web-based EAP course design and development: An example of MOODLE application.
Huang, S. J. A case study of EFL students’ writing errors on a web-based training, 139-146.
Ku, P. Y., Chen, L. T., Hsu, C., & Lin, M. H. Ranking order of usages of the word THAT, 182-189.
Lai, Y. A., Yang, Y. J., & Hsu, Y. A. Do you recognize who I am?—self-mention in Taiwanese graduate students’ writing, 190-196.
Lee, C. H., Lin, S. Y., & Liou, H. C. Learning product and process of how English learners as researchers actually produce with scaffolding of three web-based referencing tools: Research with mixed methods, 204-221.
Lee, N. C., & Chen, L. M. The role of early English writing in ESL acquisition, 219-224.
Liao, M. T. Assessment of students’ needs and problems with academic writing in Taiwan, 255-263.
Tsai, Y. C. & Liou, H. C. Design and development of online academic English writing materials: Genre analysis for Introductions of research articles in the applied linguistics fields, 355-363. Wang, F. Y. A study of EFL elementary students’ writing process in
instant messaging dialogue journals, 364-371.
6. 2007. Proceedings of 2007 International Conference and
Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics. Taipei: Crane
Publishing Co.
Huang, J. Y., & Vongpumivitch, V. Frequency analysis of academic vocabulary in a specialized corpus of applied linguistics research papers, 201-212.
Huang, L. T. & Chang, Y. Y. MA thesis acknowledgements: A contrastive analysis, 213-224.
Joe, S. G. & Wu, S. R. An investigation of reading-to-write processes of advanced EFL learners, 249-259.
Lai, Y. A. & Vongpumivitch, V. A case study of teacher feedback and student response, 294-304.
Lang, H. L. Signaling the evaluation: A corpus-based investigation of reporting verbs in English academic papers by English and Taiwanese academic writers, 305-318.
Lau, H. H. Focus bundles in academic research papers, 334-344. Li, C. Y., Chen, I. C. & Yu, G. Outside-in-inside-out: Novice writer
collaboration, a Vygotskian perspective, 364-375.
Lin, M. C. & Liou, H. C. Hedging in the discussion sections of research articles in applied linguistics, 376-387. (2007a) Wu, S. R. Pragmatic interpretations of English texts—influence of
culturally-based rhetorical patterns, 587-599.
Tseng, S. T., Wang, L. C., & Liu, S. Y. (曾守德、王莉娟、劉秀瑩). < 假設錯誤—大四學生英文假設語氣用法錯誤的初步分析> [Errors in English conditional statements: analyses of college senior students＇conditional statements ], 644-653.
7. English, National Taiwan Normal University (compiled). 2005.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on English
Teaching & Learning in ROC. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chiu, S. C. & Cheung, H. How do the errors occur? A
psycholinguistic model of the EFL writing process, 65-76. Huang, T. L (黃自來). <英語語篇意識與英語寫作教學趨向之融合
> [integrating English discourse awareness and writing instruction], 147-152.
Wu, S. R. Use of connectives by international professional writers and Taiwanese EFL writers, 342-351. (2005a)
You, Y. L. Lee, I. C. & Joe, S. G. Comparing EFL mature writers’ L1 and L2 writing processes, 368-378.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
2006. Proceedings of the 23P
rd
P International Conference on
English Teaching and Learning in the ROC. Taipei: Kaun Tang
Int’l publications Ltd.
Chen, C. F. E., & Cheng, W. Y. The use of a computer-based writing program: Facilitation or frustration, vol. 1 , 112-129.
Chiu, C. Y. Teacher roles & autonomous language learners in an online writing classroom, 201-217.
Chiu, Y. H. Difficulties of writing for publication for NNS novice scholars in Taiwan, 232-242.
Chuang, S. Y. (莊石瑛). <英文寫作學習策略與目標導向> [Learning strategies and goal orientation on English writing], 259-273.
Fang, Y. C. Student response to teacher-written comments in an EFL college writing classroom, 283-295. (2006b)
Hsieh, W. M., Tsai, T. C., Lin, M. C., Liou, H. C.U, & Kuo, C. H. E. Exploring genre sets: Research article sections in illustrative humanities and science disciplines, 349-362.
Kuo, C. H. Knowledge claims in academic research articles, 625-636. Liao, M. T. & Chen, C. H. A comparison of rhetorical strategies for
Chinese and English argumentative writing, 764-772. Lin, M. C. & ULiou, H. C. DDevelopment of online materials for
academic English writing: Contribution of text analysis on the discussion section of research articles, 862-875.
Lin, P. H. & Teng, H. C. A study of task types on EFL writing assessment, 876-891.
Min, H. T. Proceduralized written commentary: A key to quality commentary and enhanced student writing, 938-952. [2006b] Yang, S. Y. & Kuo, C. H. Authorial identity in scientific research
articles, 1138-1146.
Yao, C. K. A comparison study on EFL reading and writing in three curriculum models, 1175-1185.
You, Y. L. & Joe, S. G. A study of EFL writers’ performance of a reading-to-write task, 608-620.
9. English, National Cheng-Chi University (compiled). 2007.
Teaching and Learning in the ROC. Taipei: Taiwan ELT
Publishing Co., Ltd.
Fan, G. Y. & Hsu, A. Y. Empower our learners as conscious writers: teaching topical structure analysis to doctoral students, 285-295. (2007a)
Hsu, J. Y. Integrating a writing-across-curriculum program into a self-access learning center, 455-464.
Lan, M. H. & Wang, K. P. The effects of an English writing portfolio project on writing attitudes and achievements of junior college students, 465-479.
Lan, S. W. & Hung, C. H. A descriptive study of EFL writing teachers’ perspectives on course planning—interpretation and implications, 190-201.
Liang, T. From global celebration to local adaptation: teaching writing through best sellers, 264-272.
Lin, M. C. & Liou, H. C. Implementation of explicit lexical instruction with online corpus-based resources: Promoting learner autonomy of academic vocabulary, 12-25. (2007b) Lin, Y. Y. From EFL college students’ perspective: Exploring the use
of blogs as autonomous learning spaces, 296-313. (2007a)
Liou, H. C. Toward autonomous learning of academic English writing: What can electronic disciplinary portfolios offer? 273-284. Min, H. T. The impact of peer review training on reviewer stances in
an EFL writing class, 376-391. (2007a)
Wang, H. C. Using weblogs as a peer review platform in an EFL writing class, 400-413.
Wang, P. L. The effectiveness and difficulties of implementing children’s literature in EFL writing, 329-341.
Wu, Y. W. & Chen, M. C. Writing strategies and writing difficulties among college students of differing English proficiency, 176-189.
You, Y. L. Investigating the growth of EFL writers’ metacognitive models, 162-175.
Zhao, H. Asian students and the timed essay test: Can they do it well? 392-399.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
10. English Teaching & Learning
Chang, Y. F. (2005). An exploratory study of influences on L2 composition evaluation, 30(2), 75-94.
Chi, F. M. (2005). Harnessing peers’ power in EFL: revision with peer feedback, 30(1), 25-40.
Huang, H. T. & Liou, H. C. (2005). An action research study of an academic English writing course for graduate students in Taiwan: Students’ needs, perceptions, and register features in the writing, 30(2), 45-73.
Yeh, C. C. (2006). Journal exchange in a college composition classroom, 30(4), 69-86.
Yeh, Y., Liou, H. C., & Yu, Y. T. (2007). The influence of
computerized feedback and bilingual concordancing on EFL students’ writing, 31(1), 117-160.
Liaw, M. L. (廖美玲). <以學科為本的英語閱讀與寫作提昇：國中 生的批判性思考能力> [Promoting subject-based English reading and writing: critical thinking in junior high students] 31(2), 45-81.
11. Taiwan Journal of TESOL
Cheng, M. C. (2007). Improving interaction and feedback with computer mediated communication in Asian EFL composition classes: A case study. 4(1), 65-97.
Lai, Y. H., & Chung, R. F. (2005). Effects of peer revision on Taiwanese senior high school students' English writing, 2(1), 63-96.
Lin, C. Y. (2005). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An
investigation of graduate students' MA theses in Taiwan, 2(1), 1-62.
Okanlawon, B. (2006). The usage of tense and aspect in the written English of some selected secondary school students in Nigeria. 3(1), 35-49.
Shei, C. (2005). Plagiarism, Chinese learners and western convention, 2(1), 97-113.
25-42.
12. Studies in English language and literature (published by
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology) Baker, J. R. (2006). Getting past the past: Academic writing
experiences of three international Ph.D. students. 18(Aug), 99-102.
Fang, Y. C. (2005). Observing ESL writing instruction in the U.S.: Suggestions for EFL teachers in Taiwan. 16(August), 35-46. Hsu, L. Y., & Tien, K. J. (2006). Gender and hedging in academic
writing. 17(Feb), 89-100.
Hung, F. S., & Huang, Y. L. (2006). Genre and academic writing: An EFL classroom study, 18(Aug), 91-98.
Lau, H. H. (2005b). Structural elements of “materials and
methods” in academic journal articles. 15(February), 87-98. Tsai, Y. R. (2006). Cognitive psycholinguistic model-based EFL
writing curricula design, 18(Aug), 77-90.
Yeh, C. C. (2005). “Changing the path of the river”: Cultural phenomena in an EFL composition classroom in Taiwan.
15(Feb), 77-86.
13. 課程與教學季刊
Peng, D. L. (2007). Design principles for EFL writing instruction in a technologically-mediated knowledge building environment, 10(3), 161-186.
Liou: EFL writing research in Taiwan
