0
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：
學門分類/Division： 教育學門
執行期間/Funding Period： 107.8.1 - 108.7.31
Genre-based pedagogy: teaching materials development on review genre 課程名稱: Research Writing (英文學術論文寫作)
蕭政華
國立宜蘭大學外國語文學系
September 18, 2019
1
1. Research Motive and Purpose
I have taught two required courses “Research Methods in English Language Education” and “Research Writing” since I began teaching in the graduate division in the department of foreign languages and literature at National Ilan University. The problem that novice graduate students constantly encounter is that they find writing a review genre a thorny task because of the high density of the disciplinary knowledge and unfamiliar discursive pattern. Additionally, there is a lack of the appropriate teaching materials of literature reviewing. In this proposal, I adopted genre-based pedagogy to teach academic writing, particularly the review genre in terms of its move description and move analysis. In this study I developed teaching materials for this review genre and design lesson plans for TEFL (teaching English as a Foreign Language) graduate students. The significance as well as the implication of this proposal is that research writing instructors could have a writing model based on genre studies to train their graduate students to use appropriate moves in their review writing.
Because genre pedagogies are solidly grounded in theory and research, it is critical to examine how LR writing has been taught in research writing classes and what can be facilitated for current pedagogical approaches. In this proposal, I will investigate the writing performances of a class of graduate students during a 6-month study at a Taiwan university as they complete LR writings for various research-based writing tasks required for the class as well as considering their broader disciplinary communities. Two research questions will guide this study:
1. What are LR teaching materials and lesson plans at graduate level based on genre- based instruction?
2. What LR genre knowledge have the student writers acquired through the instruction?
2. 文獻探討(Literature Review) Literature Review as a Research Genre
Generally, a research paper is organized into five subgenres: introduction, methodology, result, discussion and conclusion. These research genres have been found to be distinct in various disciplinary discourse communities and this line of research has obtained many research results. Under this organization, however, the concept of
“literature review” as a distinct type of genre has been constantly overlooked.
In Swales’ CARS model, reviewing literature was categorized as one of the components in “Introduction” whose function was to serve as a step under Move 1
“establishing a territory” (Swales, 1990, p141). In other words, the legitimacy of LR as a research genre has not been acknowledged, not to mention analyzing the move structure of this particular genre. Literature review was not called into attention until Kwan (2006) acknowledged the insufficiency of research on literature reviews and
2
presented its move structure.
Kwan’s Framework
The moves and strategies used in Kwan’s framework are presented in a general way which is subject to more flexible interpretation. In particular, strategies such “claiming the centrality of the theme reviewed (1B)” and “making confirmative claims (2A)” may have different operational definitions. Therefore, the move structure used by Hsiao and Yu (2012) was adapted from Kwan's work (2006).
Teaching LR in research writing classes
Several studies have been devoted to LR writing (Feng, 2005 cited in Tsai, 2006;
Froese et al., 1998; Jenkins et al., 1993; Shaw, 1995; Swales & Lindemann, 2002;
Wilhelm & Kannelis, 2005). During the review of the literature, it is noted that some thesis writing classes seem to be designed as general research methodology courses, which do not specifically touch on the textual presentation of LRs (Wilhelm and Kaunelis,2005). Shaw (1995) assisted students in mapping out source groups and their relationships through text graphing; adopted from Graney’s (1992) model, sunburst, tree, matrix, and flowcharting patterns were employed for text graphing. The author acknowledged that text graphing has weaknesses potentially resulting from students’
insufficient field knowledge; furthermore, it is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of this method. Swales and Lindemann (2002) and Feng (2005, cited in Tsai, 2006) provided graduate students worksheets with prompts to perform textual analysis in which textual coherence, citations, and metadiscourse were consolidated into a process- product approach for teaching LR. Although the contextualization of the LR task is not known from Tsai’s description, it is clear that the LR move structure was not explicitly taught to graduate students to enhance their awareness of this genre.
3. Research Method Pedagogical Principles
To enhance students’ academic performance, this study will use explicit instruction, which is defined as a structured, systematic methodology for teaching LR writing (Archer & Hughes, 2011). All the units are taught using genre-based teaching. However, to narrow the scope of this study, this proposal merely focuses on literature review writing, which will last six weeks, constituting a coherent whole unit.
The instruction was in accordance with the genre-based literacy pedagogy suggested by Martin (1999, see Figure 1), involving the stages of modeling (text and context), joint negotiation of LR texts, and independent construction of LR texts. These three stages comprise a learning cycle. Modeling of LR texts (LR move structure) and teaching of the variations of LR (context) will be provided to students. The students will
3
discuss their comprehension of major moves and submoves, and subsequently conduct a genre analysis of the various LRs qualities. Furthermore, individual constructions of LR texts will reveal students’ textual realizations (LR texts).
Using the genre-based pedagogy, the instruction was characterized by a series of scaffolds, through which students’ acquisition of such genres was facilitated and enhanced by clear statements about the communicative purpose of the four major moves and their submoves and by their transference of the LR genre knowledge in their independent LR work using the move structure of literature review for masters’ students formulated by Hsiao & Yu (2012).
(Table1) Move Structures of Literature Review for Master’s Students (Hsiao& Yu, 2012)
Four tasks were designed and described below:
(1) Task 1: the aim was to test students’ knowledge of literature review before the instruction.
(2) Task 2 and Task 3: the purpose of these two tasks was to develop the learners’ ability in analyzing the move structure of the two pieces of writings and in perceiving the relationship between move structure and LR quality. Clear explanations of the high- and low-rated LRs as instructional targets were used to show what constitutes LR Move 1 Conceptualizing themes in a field
1A Presenting field knowledge/theory/belief/practices related to the current study 1B Creating a historical context
1C Identifying subfields in the major field
1D Organizing major theme(s) to be reviewed for the current study 1E Surveying research activities
Move 2 Integrating previous works on the themes
2A Grouping and drawing ideas from source materials to gain a new perspective
(ideas from various sources that support a theme are brought together, compared and contrasted.)
2B Critiquing the quality of the research discussed
(weaknesses, strengths and limitations or/ a misplaced concept underlying the research or/
unresolved conflicts among the authors of previous studies concerning a research topic)
Move 3 Relating previous works to the current study 3A Claiming relevancy to the current study
3B Indicating a gap
(a variable or factor or a research area which has been overlooked in past literature)
Move 4 Announcing personal research 4A Announcing the aim of the research
4B Announcing the research design or the research process
4C Announcing the theoretical position or the theoretical framework
4
quality.
(3) Task 4: the aim was to test the students’ ability to transfer the LR genre knowledge learned from the instruction to their LR writings.
As mentioned in the previous section, this literature review unit was included in the research writing course, which will be taught in genre-based pedagogy. This literature review writing unit will comprise six weeks of instruction in which several tasks will be implemented.
Assessments:
(1) LR move structure: to examine the moves and submoves emerge in students’ LR writing
(2) oral interview: oral interview was conducted after the six-week instruction Participants
The participant was one graduate student who took a graduate-level research writing course. She was all in her second semester of a TEFL graduate program. She was a native speaker of English from South Africa. She has received a bachelor’s degree in Education in South Africa.
Teaching materials
The following items serve as instructional tools to guide L2 graduate students in recognizing moves in LR writing.
(1) the move structure formulated by Hsiao & Yu (2012) (2) move and submove samples
(3) eight summaries excerpted from selected journal articles around a theme (4) two sampled LR genres (high-rated and low-rated)
(5) design a rubric- The Rating Scale of MA Literature Reviews- in which there will be four criteria to determine whether the literature review writing is “deficient,”
“poor,” “competent,” and “distinctive.”
(6) LR genre writing based on several journal articles Data analysis
Tasks
The tasks for students included in-class writings (Tasks 1 and 4) and the LR chapters of their research proposals as a final paper. The analyses of each task are described below. Task 1 was analyzed according to whether the student was able to divide the eight summaries into categories and combined them into a paragraph. Task 4 was analyzed based on students’ understanding of the classifications of field knowledge and their abilities to integrate fragmented pieces of information from separate studies
5
into a coherent LR when given a background paragraph. The emergence of author- and information-prominent citations was examined. The effective and ineffective results from these two tasks were chosen and discussed.The LR chapters of the research proposals of the students were analyzed based on the coding scheme formulated by Hsiao and Yu (2012, 2015) to determine the writing levels achieved by the students under genre-based pedagogy at the end of the semester.
4. Teaching and Research Outcomes
Since there was only one student enrolled in this course, it proceeded in the form of tutorial. As decribed in methodology, I followed the genre-based teaching principle- (1) modeling, (2) joint negotiation of LR texts and (3) independent construction. In addition to the Task 2 and Task 3, which served as a scaffold, Task 1 and Task 4 acted as pretest and posttest of this study. They were analyzed as follows:
(Table 2) Task analysis
Task Student work
Task 1 (prewriting task):
The aim was to test students’
knowledge of LRs before the instruction. The student would be asked to complete a prewriting task. She read eight summaries of research papers on a theme and was then required to write an LR based on them. Their reactions to the presented works were discussed in the class.
Grading criteria Teacher’s correction Questionable sentences
The motivation for Self-citation in Academic Writing Self-citations may arise from three kinds of motivation:
(1) a natural result of the cumulative nature of an individual’ research;
(2) the need for personal gratification; and (3) its value as a rhetorical device to increase and authors visibility and repution (Hyland , 2003).
Atterns of self-citation in 6 disciplines were examined. (shift to the second paragraph) 9 % of all citaitons were self-citaitons: 15% in the Physical Sciences, 6% in the Social Sciences, and #% in the Humanities (Snyder & Bonzi, 1989). The most important certer of motivation is to protect one’s own writing (and reading) by linking earlier work to later work, and a certain amount of self-citation is both natural and inevitable (White, 2001).
(no topic sentence for this paragraph) It was found that 17% of references in clinical science were self-citations, a figure that rose slightly to 20% in Basic Science (Falagas & Kavvadia, 2006). The study of 51 authors in the Natural Sciences revealed only a few differences in motivation between citing oneself and citing others (Bonzi & Snyder, 1991). This study of 400 Economics articles showed that an author’s self-citations did not have a statistically significant effect on that article’s total number of citaitons (Medoff, 2006). Study of the citing practices of 56 highly cited authors in the field of Educaiton was conducted. Only 2 ofhte 56 did not cite themselves over a 12-year period. At the other extreme, 154 out of 280 citations (55%) received by one author were the outcome of self-citaitons (Phelan, 1999).
(no topic sentence for this paragraph) Fowler and Aknes undertook a macro study of more than half a million citations to articles by Noreigian scientists int eh 1981-2000 period. The average citation rate was 11%, although there were wide individual variations. They then showed that the more authors cited themselves, the more likely they were to be cited by tohers. However, tey note that there are currently no penaties for frequent slef-citing. These results, they conclude, question the use of citations to evaluate performance (Fowler & Aknes, 2007).
6
(no topic sentence for this paragraph) More recently the following questions have been asked; How should frequent self-citing be addressed in the academic world? Do they contribte to the discussion or work that is being doen? Should there be penalties for excess self-citing and if so, what should those penalties be?
(combine the last two paragrphs) Task 4 (LR writing
task): The aim of Task 4 was to test the students’ ability to transfer the LR genre knowledge learned from the instruction to their LR writing. The students were required to complete a post- instruction task on a literature review genre, for which they practice writing information- and author- prominent citations.
Grading Criteria topic sentntece information prominent citation
author prominent citation
Differentail gain rates in intensive ESL prgrams:
Who gains the most?
Lietrature Review
Seveal studies have focused on individual characteristics of language learners, including environmental variables such as classroom, school, and community. Researchers found that they were able to predict the success of individuals in foreign language learning through motivation and aptitude but not IQ (Caroll, 1962). Additionally, research examining external variables determined that class size, school size, and school location all affected the successful learning of English as a second language (Fathman, 1976).
Other studies proposed that the use of standardized English language tests could predict studnets’ academic success. Mason (1971) compared studnets’ initial scores on the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency with studnets’ grade point average (GPA) after one year and concluded thath the Michigan Test was not a good predictor of studnets’ academic success. In other research, Moran and Erion (1978) used the comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) as a possible predictor of tusents’ academic success in university classes and found that while CELT doesnot predict the studnets’ GPa, it does predict the number of credits earned. However very few studies were doen on the effect of studnets’ initial proficiency on later progress on English.
Nevo, sim, and Bensousan (1977) in a study of studnets in a non- intensive English program at a Middle-Eastern university found that those studnents’ with higher initial scores on the proficiency test made more pregress that students’ with lower scores. Marton (1972) reports similar results to Nevo et al. when investigating a non-intensive English program at a Scandinavian university.
Final Project:
The LR chapters of the research proposals of the students were analyzed based on the coding scheme formulated by Hsiao and Yu (2012, 2015).
Grading Criteria:
Move 1 Move 2 Move 3 Move 4
Readers Theater: Achieving fluency and prosody in oral reading within elementary ESL classrooms
Introduction -- Literautre Review Reader Theater
(Move 1A) Readers Theater can be defined as an interactive oral reading activity that allows student to read the text out loud in groups of two or more. Not every reading out loud activity is Readers Theater, although Readers Theater scripts take the form of poems, plays, and interviews. Readers Theater can be adapted form various topics and incorporated into any subject. Readers familiarize themselves with the original text or story, and then transform it into a script involving several characters and perform for an intended audience, live or recorded.
However, the bulk of the work is usually done by the teacher at the lower elementary leel as they usually adjest the script to suit the level of the studnets. Readers use their voices to relay emotion and understanding as they become actively involved in the reading of the script. Teachers use scaffolding and repeated reading techniques to help readers build on their reading skills.
(Move 2A)The use of Readers Theater as a tool to enhance reading at the elementary school level has added benefits as described in numerous studies boht in Taiwan and around the blobe, and positive effects include: reading fluency, improved comprehension, classroom engagement, automaticity, enhanced interest and enjoyment in reading (Young & Rasinski, 2017; Chase Young, Faida Stokes, & Rasinski,
7
2017; Aghaei, Lie, Noor, & Rajabi, 2014), reading confidence and learning motivation (ChouC.-T., 2013; Clementi, 2010). (Move 2A) As a method of improving oral reading fluency and wirting, increasing motivation, and reducing anxiety among ESL leanrers, Readers Theater has been researched at various levels of educiaton and found especially useful as a remedial tool (chou C.-T, 2013) (Tian. & Wu, 2012) (Chou, Wang, & Ching, 2012).
(Move 4A) As increasing body of research has identified many aspects of reding fluency that leads to enhancements in studnets’
academic ability (National Reading Panel, 2000; Rasinski T.V., 2000).
Although fluency is regarded as essential to the reading process, fluency is often measured only in terms of ral reading speed, the emphasis placed on how fast someone reads a grade appropriate text in one minute (Rasinski T.V., 2012)
Reading Fluency
(Move 1A) The research however also recognizes and incorporates three key components of fluency: accuracy in phonetic competence, automaticity in recognizing words, and prosody (Chard, Vaughn, & Talor, 2002) (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003) (Rasinski, Ruetzel, Chard., & Linan-Thompson, 2011), which should be considered in relation to fluency.
(Move 4) Presently, reading fluency is understood as being alble to automatically and accurately read a text, in addition to speed nad prosody, and remains an integral part of skillsful reading. Using approiate grade-level reading texts is essential as more complex texts will influence the level of fluency attained (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).
(Move 3B) Teachers in Taiwan have access to a variety of reading strategies but seem to be limited by the curriculum as well as time constraints. Attaining reading fluency and prosody in English curriculum and remains a method of reading used for competition purposes only.
Reading fluency
(Move 1) As an integral part of fluency, prosody can be described as being able to speak or read with intonation, using a combination of pitch, pause, and volume to convey a message (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel, 2010). Prosody, while having its own definition, falls under the banner of fluency and has an vital role in oral reading fluency. During a conversation, various tones and pitches in our voice convey meaning without which our speech would be dull. How would one know if someone wa happy or sad without intonation and prosody? The expression “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it, “ seems to be directly related ot prosody.
(Move 1A) Developing a sense of prosody early on in reading is essential to understanding the text being read. Reading with expression is crucial to reading well and conveys meaning, and this process is continuous (Khun, Meisinger, & Schwanenflugel, 2010). An essential component to consider when examining prosody is the native language of the speaker, especially concerning pitch (Khun, Meisinger, &
Schwanenflugel, 2010). It also seems that in tonal languages, e.g., Mandarin, the measurement of prosody needs to be adjusted according to those features.
Apart from highly specialized equipment, accurately measuring prosody has been a challenge, and many teachers follow the WPM testing method that tests for fluency. Although this is a time-consuming process of assessing reading levels, it does not check for prosody.
Haskins & Aleccia (2014) proposed a rubric adepted from the Zutell &
Rasinski fluency model (1991), to measure prosody. While the rubric may need ot be modified, an attempt will be made to use the proposed rubric in Figure 1, to test ESL students’ oral reading fluency and prosody.
1. Pretest
The student’s prior knowledge of LR part genre is insufficient at the initial stage for lack of topic sentence for paragraph writing and insertion of unrelated sentence in a paragraph.
8
2. During test
In Task 3, this participant showed certain generic features of LR writing. The emergence of topic sentneces of each paragraph, the author prominent citation (author’s name in the subject position) and information prominent citation (authors’ names are given in the parenthesis at the end).
3. Post test
Post test measured the participant’s use of the moves in her literature review chapter in her final project proposal of this course. The word counts for the literature review section was 785 words, which covered 3 sections. In Table 3, it shows that Move 1 is used prevenatly across three sections. However, Move 2, 3 and 4 are also used in this LR part genre. This indicates that the participant was able to transfer what she has learned to do an independent work on her own using the four major moves.
Table 3 Move analysis of the partipant’s literature review section
Move Frequency
Move 1 5
Move 2 1
Move 3 1
Move 4 2
Also, Move 2 emerged since the participant had read related studied and synthesize them into two sentences uning information prominent citations (see ○1 and ○2 ) although the participant showed minor mistakes with the form of the citations.
(Move 2)○1 The use of Readers Theater as a tool to enhance reading at the elementary school level has added benefits as described in numerous studies boht in Taiwan and around the blobe, and positive effects include: reading fluency, improved comprehension, classroom engagement, automaticity, enhanced interest and enjoyment in reading (Young & Rasinski, 2017; Chase Young, Faida Stokes, & Rasinski, 2017; Aghaei, Lie, Noor, & Rajabi, 2014), reading confidence and learning motivation (ChouC.-T., 2013; Clementi, 2010). (Move 2) ○2 As a method of improving oral reading fluency and wirting, increasing motivation, and reducing anxiety among ESL leanrers, Readers Theater has been researched at various levels of educiaton and found especially useful as a remedial tool (chou C.-T, 2013) (Tian. &
Wu, 2012) (Chou, Wang, & Ching, 2012).
(1) 教師教學反思
1. Genre-based teaching is effective and the effects are straightforward
This study was a learner- and context-embedded study within the EAP genre-based framework. The first research quesotn guiding this was was “What are LR teaching materials and lesson plans at graduate level based on genre-based instruction?” The materials were designed following the pedagogical principles involving the three stages of modelling (text and context), joint negotiation of LR texts and independent construction of LR texts, which comprises a learning cycle. The students discussed her
9
understanding of major moves and submoves, subsequently conducting a genre analysis of the various LRs qualities. Individual constructions of LR texts revealed the target students’ textual realizaitons.
Teaching materials included the move structre formulated by Hsiao & Yu (2012), major move and submove sampels, eight pieces of summary excerpted form selected journal articles around a theme, two LR texts (high-rated and low-rated), a rating scale of MA Literature Review in which there were four quality levels: deficient, poor, competent, and distinctive. All the teaching materials have collected in a book written by me entitled “Research reading and writing for EFL students in applied linguistics, ” which will be published in the winter of 2019.
The second research question “What LR genre knowledge have the students writers acquired through the instruction?” The target student has gained LR genric knowledge and she is able to transfer the ability learned from the class and the tasks to a new project lauched on her own though the LR still leaves some room to be desired.
2. LR genre knowledge learned by the target student
The student in this study learned not only the formal knowledge but also the process konwledge of this particular genre. The learner exhibited higher performance than those in the study of Hisoa and Yu (2012), particularly in the pretask and posttask assignments, in which the student learned how to recognize quality variation in LRs and how to avoid problematic discourse patterns. Following writing training the LR genre, the student was able to quickly produce well-written LRs with information-prominent citaitosn. Subsequent written responses and articulations also revealed that the writing practices of thse writers evolved to include appropriate move use, theme-based organization, and information-prominet citation. The target student gained both formal and process knowelge (Huang, 2014). She gained substantial genre knowledge after investing considerable effort to tackle its complexity.
3. Limitaitons and Implications for Future Research
The genre pedagogy of the present study is not without weaknesses. Since the target student is relatively inexperienced writer in academic writing, her literature review depended largely on description rather than classification for Move 1, meaning that she wrote down what she had read rather than giving a conceptual guide to her chosen field.
Students need to invest considerable time to digest what the moves and submoves mean to her in LR writing. Therefore, the amount of time available appears to be another factor for the effectivenss of teaching LR writing.
The pedagogical implications of this study suggest the need to re-examine the writng instruction approach in undergraduate and graduate program for discipline- specific literacy practice, both to enhance graduate writing instruction and to advocate genre-based writing.
10
(2) 學生學習回饋 Questions for this course
1. What have you learned from this class?
When I started this course I thought that academic writing would be a waste of time, however I was proven wrong on so many levels. I have learned quite a lot in this class. In particular, I learned how to read a research paper in order to find the specific information I need, saving precious time in the process.
While I will probably still make mistakes, possibly punctuation, I will be more aware of this in the future and attempt to correct my work before sending it off.
2. Do you think that this genre-based pedagogy helps you understand the structure of a research paper? Why?
The use of this genre-based pedagogy was extremely useful in helping me understand the structure of the research paper. While it was challenging, I learned that there are stages or ‘moves’ within each section that gives form to the paper itself. I also learned that there are different tenses at play within a research text that allows one to understand the author’s purpose and stance on a particular subject. Using certain types of wording can make your stance on a particular subject quite strong and that as a researcher I have to constantly be humble about what I am writing about.
3. Do you think this class builds up your strength as a reader as well as a writer in academia?
Why?
I do think that became more aware of my short comings as a writer due to the fact that I deal with young children every day, and simplify my way of speech as well as writing to accommodate them. Reading a research paper has become a lot easier because I now know what to look for in the text and read for specific purposes. The transition to a more academic way of writing takes time and while I may have to review what I have learned, I think that I now have a new awareness of what needs to be done in terms of reading a research paper and writing one.
4. With the constraint of the limited number of students in this class, how do you evaluate this tutorial (one to one) learning experience? The scenario of this class is that your instructor is a nonnative speaker of English who teaches a native speaker of English Academic English writing.
Do you think this seemingly conflicting pair in terms of the ownership of language would create or impede your learning?
I really enjoyed the learning experience however I cannot say that it wasn’t stressful at the beginning as the only person I could talk to about the class was the teacher. As the semester progressed I became more relaxed and a lot less stressed.
I don’t think that the scenario is a strange one as I think I am gaining knowledge and learning from someone who is an expert in her field, and as a student of academic writing, I have learned a lot. If the teacher did not know how to teach the course, I would look at the situation in a different way.
The study supports the use of genre-based pedagogy through explicit and structured instruction (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Cheng, 2007; Hyland, 2007) and confirms that genre-based pedagogy for LRs is effective in EAP instruction at the graduate level. Such instruction is useful because it adopts both LR literacy practice and explicit instruction, designed to take into account LR text complexity, EFL learner proficiency, and learning context. In terms of the learning context, learners are generally in a disadvantaged position when acquiring discipoplianry discourse compared with native English speakers. The language status needs to be considered when offering explicit rhetorical instruction to learners to bridge the gap between various discourse communities’ practices and their previous educational experiences (Wilder, 2012).
11
參考文獻(References)
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). Product, process and genre: Approaches to writing in EAP. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Understanding literacy as a social practice. In D.
Barton & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. (pp. 3-22). New York: Routledge.
Bawarshi, A. (2000). The genre function. College English, 62(3), 335-360.
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy:
graduate students and their mentors, English for Specific Purposes,13, 23-34.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analyzing genre: language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.
Blakeslee, A. M. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of business and technical communication, 11(2), 125-169.
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 4, 207- 224.
Brett.P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (1), 47-59.
Byrnes, H., and Katherine S. "Fostering Advanced L2 Literacy: A Genre-based Cognitive Approach." Advanced Foreign Language Learning: A Challenge to College Programs. Eds. Heidi Byrnes, Hiram H. Maxim. AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle, 2003. 47–86
Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 76-89.
Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness:
Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework.
English for Specific Purposes, 26, 287–307.
Creme, P. (2000) The ‘personal’ in university writing: uses of reflective learning
12
journals. In M. Lea and B. Stierer (Eds), Student writing in higher education: New contexts (pp.97–111). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Chaisiri T (2010). Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of Writing in a University Context in Thailand. Language Education in Asia 1:181- 199.
Dong Y. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science:
Self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institution, English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369-390.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MSc dissertations. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Talking about text (pp. 128-145). Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Feng, H. P. (2005). A process-product approach of teaching academic writing: Using the teaching of writing a literature review as an example. Paper presented in the 22nd international conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China.
June 4-5. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-251.
Froese, A.D, Gantz, B.S., and Henry, A.L. (1998). Teaching students to write literature reviews: a meta-analytic model. Teaching of Psychology, 25(2), 102-105
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Graney, J. (1992). A framework for text graphing. System. 20(2), 161-167.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M., & Hasan. R. (1989). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hewings M, (1993). The end! How to conclude a dissertation. In G M Blue (Ed.) Language, learning and success: Studying through English developments in TEFL.
Hemel Hempstead: Phoenix TEFL.
Hsiao, C. & Yu, H. (2012). Knowledge presentation in thesis writing- Examining move use in reviewing literature. English Teaching and Learning, 36(3),1-47.
13
Hsiao, C. & Yu, H. (2015). Move distribution and configuration of literature reviews at four levels. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 7(1), 51-85.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T.(1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion section in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 113-122.
Huang, J. C. (2014). Learning to write for publication in English through genre-based pedagogy: A case in Taiwan. System, 45, 175-186.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: how far should we go no? English of Specific Purposes, 21, 385-395.
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: the generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164.
Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32-43.
Jenkins, S., Jordan, M. K., & Weiland, P. O. (1993). The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 51-67.
Johns, A.M. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 277-291). Cambridge, UK: CUP.
Johns, A.M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195-217). Cambridge, UK:CUP.
Kwan, B. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, 25, 30-55.
Kwan, B. (2008) The nexus of reading, writing and researching in the doctorial undertaking of humanities and social sciences: implications for literature reviewing, English for Specific Purposes, 27, 42-56.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in higher education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lee H. (2010). Responding to genre-based writing instruction: An interpretive study of L2 writers’ experiences in two graduate level ESP/EAP writing courses. Unpublished
14
PhD dissertation. Ohio State University.
Lim, J. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: a pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.
Lingard, L., & Haber, R. (2002). Learning medical talk: How the apprenticeship complicates current explicit/tacit debates in genre instruction. In R. Coe, L. Lingard and T. Teslenko (Eds). The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp.155-170). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Lores R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organization.
TESOL Quarterly, 23, 280-302.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: methodology and design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring Semogenesis: 'Genre Based' Literacy Pedagogy. In F.
Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness. Linguistic and Social Processes (pp. 123-155). London, New York: Continuum.
Nwogu, K. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Pang, T. (2002). Textual analysis and contextual awareness building: a comparison of two approaches to teaching genre. In A.M. Johns (ed.), Genre in the classroom:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 145-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language teaching, 37(2), 87-105.
Paltridge, B. (2013). Genre and English for specific purposes. In Brian Paltridge & Sue Starfield (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes, (pp. 347-366).
Malden, Ma, USA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second- language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317-345.
Pecorari, D. (2010). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London:
Continuum.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The semantic structure of computer science research articles.
English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-160.
Santos, M. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstract in applied linguistics. Text, 16, 481-499.
Seloni, L. (2012). Academic literacy socialization of first year doctoral students in US:
15
A micro-ethnographic perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 31(1), 47-59.
Shaw J. (1995). A schema approach to the formal literature review in engineering theses.
System, 23(3), 325-335.
Spivey, N.N. (1991). The shaping of meaning: Options in writing the comparison.
Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 390-418.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: University of Aston Language Studies Unit.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales J.M., & Lindemann, S. (2002). Teaching the literature review to international graduate students. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genres and the classroom-multiple perspectives (pp. 105-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J.M. & Luebe, M.A. (2002). Genre analysis and the advanced second langague writer. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 135- 154). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Tardy,C.M. (2005). “It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced academic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 325-338.
Tardy, C.M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. Indiana: Parlor Press.
Tsai, Y. C. (2006). Effects of online academic English materials on graduate students’
writing: introductions in research articles of the applied linguistic disciplines.
Unpublished Master Thesis. National Ching Hua University.
Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Wihelm, W.J., & Kaunelis, D. (2005). Literature reviews: analysis planning, and query techniques. The DTELFLa Pi Epsilon Journal, 47(2), 91-106.
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies:
Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Williams, P. (1999). Result sections of medical research articles: Analysis of rhetorical
16
categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 347-366.
Yeh, C. C. (2010). New graduate students’ perspectives on research writing in English:
A case study in Taiwan. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 4 (1), 1-12.
Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.
17
附件(Appendix)
與本研究計畫相關之研究成果資料，可補充於附件，如學生評量工 具、訪談問題等等。
Questions for the interview:
What have you learned from this class?
Do you think that this genre-based pedagogy helps you understand the structure of a research paper? Why?
Do you think this class builds up your strength as a reader as well as a writer in academia? Why?
With the constraint of the limited number of students in this class, how do you evaluate this tutorial (one to one) learning experience? The scenario of this class is that your instructor is a nonnative speaker of English who teaches a native speaker of English Academic English writing. Do you think this seemingly conflicting pair in terms of the ownership of language would create or impede your learning?
Any suggestions for this course?
