Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52847
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor余明忠zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorYu, Ming Chungen_US
dc.contributor.author林舒悠zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorLin, Su Yuen_US
dc.creator林舒悠zh_TW
dc.creatorLin, Su Yuen_US
dc.date2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-04-17T01:31:09Z-
dc.date.available2012-04-17T01:31:09Z-
dc.date.issued2012-04-17T01:31:09Z-
dc.identifierG0095951011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52847-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description英語教學碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description95951011zh_TW
dc.description100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract英文作文教學在英語學習上是不可或缺的一環,而實際上在台灣,英文作文教學仍是透過分析文法和句型來進行的,但這樣的方式忽略了英文寫作能夠成功的主要關鍵——連貫性。由於連貫性的晦澀難解,教師與學生皆會認為在教授和學習寫出有連貫性的文章是很複雜的。本文藉由教導學生如何於寫作時運用連繫功能詞(cohesive devices)和主題推進(thematic progression)兩種策略來探究作文中的連貫性,以研究其增進高中生英文寫作表現的可能性。本研究在不影響正常教學進度的前提下進行,研究者的39位臺北市高二學生首先接受如何分析課本文章連貫性的指導,並接著應用和檢視連繫功能詞以及主題推進於他們的寫作中。其中有兩位低成就者進一步地被挑選出來,藉由寫作會談(writing conference)以瞭解受試者在寫作時,如何利用以上兩種連貫性的策略於其英文寫作中;同時也透過訪談和日記撰寫的方式,來探討學生的學習連貫性策略的歷程。\n 由相關的量化和質性資料可看出,本研究的結果顯示受試者在作文整體表現與作文連貫性上的分數明顯偏高;他們也被證明能夠和其他研究中的高成就者一般,運用相同的連繫功能詞(指稱、連接與重述)和主題推進(線性推進與主題連續推進)種類。在這歷時五個月的研究中,受試者也在連繫功能詞與主題推進的協助下,培養出更注意作文內容以及進行適當修改的能力。此外,也由於受試者對於學習連繫功能詞與主題推進抱持著正面的態度,本研究建議應結合連繫功能詞和主題推進,並將其融入台灣現存的正規作文教學之中,藉著分析作文中的連繫功能詞與主題推進,協助學生理解抽象的連貫性進而使作文表現更進步。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractAs an indispensable element in English learning, writing instruction in Taiwan actually has been given through the analysis of grammar and sentence patterns. This however ignores another primary key to successful writing—coherence. Due to its obscurity, teachers and students both find it complicated to teach and acquire the ability to organize a written text logically and coherently. The current study investigated the possibility to improve the high school students’ writing by instructing them how to apply the coherence strategies to their writing—cohesive devices (CD) and thematic progression (TP). In this study, with the teaching schedule unaffected, the researcher’s 39 second-graders in one Taipei senior high school were first taught how to analyze the coherence of the reading passages in the textbooks. Then they were required to apply and examine CD and TP when writing. Two low achievers of these students were further selected to investigate their writing development by examining their written texts with CD and TP applied in writing conferences, having interviews with the researcher and keeping journals between classes and writing conferences.\n Concluded from the quantitative and qualitative data collected, the results revealed that the two low-proficiency students were able to get high grades in the holistic writing performance and coherence of writing. They were meanwhile found to be able to apply the same categories of CD (reference, conjunction and reiteration) and types of TP (simple linear TP type and TP with a constant theme) as the ones used by the high-proficiency learners in previous studies. During the five-month study, the participants also cultivated the ability to focus more on content level and to revise properly in their writing with the help of CD and TP. Besides, since the participants held positive attitudes toward the learning of CD and TP, the researcher recommends that the combination of CD and TP should be integrated into the writing instruction in current normal English writing class in Taiwan to help students comprehend the abstract coherence and to improve their writing by analyzing CD and TP in the written texts.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAcknowledgements iii\nChinese Abstract xii\nEnglish Abstract xiv\nChapter One: Introduction 1\nBackground 1\nMotivation 3\nPurpose and Significance of the Study 5\nChapter Two: Literature Review 6\nWriting Process 6\nRevision in Writing 6\nThe Characteristics of Revision 7\nWhat to be Revised 8\nLow Achievers’ Revision 10\nCoherence in Writing 13\nCoherence Types 14\nCohesion 14\nPropositional Coherence 18\nCoherence Analysis: Thematic Progression (TP) 20\nSimple Linear TP 20\nTP with a Continuous/Constant Theme 21\nTP with a Hypertheme 21\nExposition of Split Rheme 22\nTP with a Thematic Jump 22\nOther Two Rhematic Progression Types 22\nPrevious Studies on TP 23\nThe Integration of CD and TP 25\nResearch Questions 28\nChapter Three: Method 29\nParticipants 29\nSelection 30\nRaters 31\nGEPT Raters 31\nCoherence Researchers 32\nData Collection and Procedure 33\nProduct Data 33\nThe Participants’ Written Drafts and the Raters’ Comments 33\nThe Procedure of Collecting the Product Data 34\nThe Two Participants’ Written Works 37\nProcess Data 38\nWhy Writing Conferences? 38\nThe Procedure of the Writing Conferences 39\nPerception Data 40\nJournals 40\nQuestionnaires 41\nInterviews 41\nData Analysis 42\nThe Analysis of Product Data 42\nThe Procedure of Analyzing CD and TP Types in the Written Essays 42\nThe Scale to Score CD and TP Type 44\nThe Analysis of Process Data 46\nThe Analysis of Perception Data 47\nJournals 48\nQuestionnaires 48\nInterviews 49\nChapter Four: Results 50\nThe Effect of Learning CD and TP on Writing 51\nEffect 1: Progress in Writing Performance 51\nThe Awareness of the Improvement in Writing Performance 51\nThe Changes Leading to the Progress in Writing Performance 53\nThe Progress Shown in the Product Data 57\nEffect 2: Improvement in Writing Coherence 59\nThe Awareness of the Improvement in Writing Performance 59\nDifferent Aspects of Perceiving the Progress in Writing Coherence 60\nThe Progress in Writing Coherence Shown in the Product Data 63\nEffect 3: the Frequency of Certain Categories in CD and TP 65\nThe Analysis of CD 66\nThe Analysis of TP 69\nThe Raters’ Comments on the Writing Coherence 72\nThe Development of the Participants’ Writing 73\nThe Development of Writing Coherence 74\nThe Participants’ Familiarity with CD and TP 74\nThe Development of Writing Skills 77\nThe Preference for CD 77\nMore Focus on Content Level 82\nThe Enhancement of Revision Stage 84\nThe Participants’ Attitudes toward Writing Coherence 88\nThe Cultivation of Confidence in Writing Coherence 88\nThe Attitudes toward the Learning of CD and TP 90\nChapter Five: Discussion 97\nThe Effect of Instructing CD and TP on the Students’ Writing 97\nLow Achievers’ Progress in Writing and Writing Coherence 97\nThe CD Categories and TP Types Adopted by the Underachievers 99\nThe Application of Certain CD Categories 99\nThe Application of Certain TP Types 101\nThe Development of Writing Coherence in Low Achievers’ Writing 103\nThe Possibility to Make Low Achievers Familiar with CD and TP 104\nThe Preference for CD 105\nMore Focus on Content Level 106\nThe Enhancement of Making Revision 107\nThe Participants’ Attitudes toward Writing Coherence 108\nLow Achievers’ Confidence in Writing 109\nThe Participants’ Attitudes toward CD and TP 110\nChapter Six: Conclusion 112\nSummary of the Major Findings 112\nImplications 114\nLimitations 115\nSuggestions for Future Studies 116\nReferences 118\nAppendices 134\nAppendix A—Classification of Halliday and Hasan’s Cohesive Devices 135\nAppendix B—The Thematic System 136\nAppendix C—Daneš’s TP Types 137\nAppendix D—Consent Form 138\nAppendix E—The Participants’ Typed Works 139\nAppendix F—CEEC Rating Scale for Compositions 140\nAppendix G—Process of the Coherence Learning 141\nAppendix H—The Chart of CD and TP 142\nAppendix I—Reading Handout with CD and TP 145\nAppendix J—The Test of CD and TP 146\nAppendix K—Peter’s Writing Task 147\nAppendix L—Bob’s Journal of Draft 6 148\nAppendix M—Questionnaire 149\nAppendix N—Interview Questions 152\nAppendix O—The Coding Scheme of Conference Talks 153\nAppendix P—The Coding Scheme of Journals 154\nAppendix Q—The Interview Log 155\nAppendix R—The Coding Scheme of Interviews 156\nAppendix S—GEPT Raters’ Scores of the Participants’ Essays and Coherence 157\nAppendix T—Bob’s and the Researchers’ Analyses of CD and TP in Fight 158\nAppendix U—The Researchers’ Scores of the Participants’ Writing Coherence 159\nAppendix V—The Excerpt of Attitudes toward CD and TP in Bob’s Final Interview 160\nAppendix W—The Excerpt of Attitudes toward CD and TP in Peter’s Final Interview 161zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095951011en_US
dc.subject連繫功能詞zh_TW
dc.subject主題推進zh_TW
dc.subject寫作連慣性zh_TW
dc.subjectCohesive Devicesen_US
dc.subjectThematic Progressionen_US
dc.subjectWriting Coherenceen_US
dc.title連繫功能詞與主題推進教學對增進EFL低成就者的寫作連貫性之研究zh_TW
dc.titleThe improvement of coherence in EFL low achievers` writing through the instruction of cohesive devices and thematic progressionen_US
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.referenceAlmaden, D. O. (2006). An analysis of the topical structure of paragraphs written by Filipino students. The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 15(1), 127-153.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlonso , B. I., & A. McCabe (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The Internet TESL Journal, IX(2). Retrieved February 11, 2010, from: http:// iteslj. org/ Articles/ Alonso- ImprovingFlow.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlonso B. I., & A. McCabe (1998a) Theme-Rheme patterns in L2 writing. Didáctica (Lengua y Literatura) , 10, 13-31.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAlonso, B. I., & A. McCabe (1998b) Looking for tools to assess ESL student compositions at the discourse level: the Theme/Rheme notion, GRETA, Journal for English Teachers, 6(2), 52-57.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceApplebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a re- conceptualization of process instruction. In Petrosky, A. R. and Bartholomae, D. (Eds.). The teaching of writing: Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 95-113.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceArbur, R. (1977). The student-teacher conference. College Composition and Communication, 28(4), 338-342.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAsh, B. H. (1983). Selected effects of elapsed time and grade level on the revisions in eighth, tenth and twelfth graders’ writing. Dissertation Abstracts, 43(12), 3830A.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBailey K. M. & Ochsner R. (1983). A methodological review of the diary studies: Windmill tilting or social science? In Bailey K. M., Long, M. H. and Peck, H. (eds). Second Language Acquisition Studies (pp.188-198). Rowley, Mass: Newberry House.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic World in English Composition. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43-65). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBamberg, B. (1978). Composition instruction does not make a difference: A comparison of college freshman in regular and remedial English courses. Research of the Teaching of English, 12, 47-59.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBeach, R. (1976). Self-evaluation strategies of extensive revisers and non-revisers. College Composition and Communication, 27, 111-119.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencede Beaugrand, R., & Dresseler, W. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBell, R. T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBereiter, C. & M. Scardamalia (1986). Research on written composition. In C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 778-803. New York: Macmillan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBereiter, C. & M. Scardamalia (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBerry, M. (1992). Bringing systems back into a discussion of theme. Plenary address to the 19th International Systematic Functional Congress, Macquarie University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBiesenbach-Lucas, S., Meloni, C., & Weasenforth, D. (2000). Use of cohesive features in ESL students’ e-mail and word-processed texts: A comparative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(3), 221-237.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBloor, M. & T. Bloor. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: an application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6, 33-44.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBowen, B. A. (1993). Using conferences to support the writing process. In A. M. Penrose & B. M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive research in the college writing classroom (pp. 188-200). New York: Oxford UP.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBracewell, R. J., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 154 433).zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrice, C. (1998). ESL writers’ reactions to teacher feedback: A multiple case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Perdue University, West Lafayette, IN.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197-222.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBrown, R. (1981). National assessments of writing ability. In C. Frederiksen & J. Dominic (Ed.), Writing: process, development and communication (pp.31-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCao, Y. J. (2008). Thematic progression and writing teaching of college English. Unpublished master’s thesis. Qingdao University of Science and Technology.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarter-Thomas, S. (2008). Teaching coherence through genre. De la France au Quebec – l`Ecriture dans tous ces etats, IUFM Poitou-Charentes : France.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarreon, M. E. C. (2006). Unguarded patterns of thinking: Physical and topical structure analysis of student journals. The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 15(1), 155-182.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChao, K. H. (2002). Thematic progression in the argumentative essays of EFL senior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChen, H. M. (2002). An Analysis of Lexical Cohesion in Senior High School Student`s Compositions. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChiang, S. Y. (1999). Assessing grammatical and textual features in L2 writing samples: The case of French as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 83, 219-232.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChiu, Y. (2004). Coaching a student to develop coherence based upon topical structure analysis: A case study. Journal of Language and Learning, 2(2), 154-170.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCloran, (1995). Defining and relating text segments: Subject and theme in discourse. In: R. Hasan & P. H. Fries. (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCohen, A. D. (1994). Verbal reports on learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 678-682.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceConnor, U. (1987). Research Frontiers in Writing Analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 677-696.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceConnor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceConnor, U., & M. Farmer. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 126-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCooper, A. (1988). Given-new: Enhancing coherence through cohesiveness. Written Communication, 5(3), 352-367.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCrismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Meta-discourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCrompton, P. (2004). Theme in discourse: ‘Thematic progression’ and ‘method of development’ re-evaluated. Functions of Language, 11(2), 213-249.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCrow, B. K. (1983). Topic shifts in couples’ conversations. In: R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure and strategy (pp. 136- 156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCrowley, S. (1977). Components of the composing process. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 166-169.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8, 58-78.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspective on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 61-78.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCumming, A., Rebuffot, J., & Ledwell, M. (1989). Reading summarizing challenging texts in first and second languages. Reading and Writing, 1(3), 201-219.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDaneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In: F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106–128). Prague/The Hague: Academia/Mouton.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDennett, J. (1990). ESL technical writing: Process and rhetorical differences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED 322713).zh_TW
dc.relation.referencevan Dijk, T. A. and Kintsh, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego: Academic.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencevan Dijk, T. A. and Kintsh, W. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDowning, A. (2001). Thematic progression as a functional resource in analyzing texts. Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación, ISSN 1576-4737, Nº. 5. Retrieved June 29, 2010, from https://sslvpn.nccu.edu.tw/info/circulo/no5/,DanaInfo=www.ucm.es+downing.htm.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDuke, C. R. (1975). The Student-Centered Conference and the Writing Process. English Journal, 64(9), 44-47.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDumanig, F. P., Esteban, I. C., Lee, Y. P., & A. D., Gan. (2009). Topical structure analysis of American and Philippine editorials. Journal of the Advancement of Science & Arts, 1(1), 63-72.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistic. London: Printer Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceElbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEllis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39-60.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEmig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEricsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFaigley, L., Cherry, R. D., Jolliffe D. A. & Skinner A. M. (1985). Assessing writers’ knowledge of process of composing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFaigley, L. & Witte, S. P. (1981a). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFaigley, L. & Witte, S. P. (1981b). Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 189-204.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFaigley, L., & Witte, S. (1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In R. Beach & L. S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directionsin compositionre search (pp. 95-108). New York: Guilford Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFan. Y. S. (2008). Topical structure analysis as an alternative learning strategy of coherent writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFathman, A. K., & E. Whalley. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (1995a). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft compositionzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceclassrooms, TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implication for second language students. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFerris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issue (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFirbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. In Travaux Linguistiques de Prague I, 267-279.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFirbas, J. (1974). \"Some Aspects of the Czechoslovak Approach to Problems of Functional Sentence Perspective\". In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective (pp. 11-37). The Hague: Mouton.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFirbas, J. (1986). On the dynamics of written communication and in light of the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective. In C. Copper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches (pp. 40-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFitzgerald J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481-506.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFitzgerald J. & Markham, L. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3-24.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlower, L. (1989). Problem-solving strategies for writing (3rd ed). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 363-387.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFlower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106-1113.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceForeman, P. (1948). The theories of case studies. Social Forces, 26(4), 408-419.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFrancis, G. (1990). Theme in the daily press. Occasional Papers in Systematic Linguistics, 4, 51-87.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFries, P.H. (1981/1983) On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum 6(1), 1-38. [Reprinted in J.S Petofi and E. Sozer (eds.) Micro and macro connexity of texts, 116-152. Hamburg: Buske.]zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFries, P. H. (1995). A personal view of theme. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts, pp.1-19. London: Pinter.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoldstein, L. M. & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student Input and Negotiation of Meaning in ESL Writing Conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoldstein, L. M. & Conrad, S. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-180.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGomez, A. (1994). The relevance of theme in the textual organization of BBC news reports. Word, 45(3), 293-305.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGoodin, G., & Perkins, K. (1982). Discourse analysis and the art of coherence. College English, 44, 57-63.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHairston, M. (1982). The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76-88.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHajicova, E. (1994). Topic/foucs and related research. In P. A. Luelsdorff (Ed.), The Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics (pp. 245-275). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24(1), 43-60.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHalliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar (1st Edition). London: Edward Arnold.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHalliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman Group: London.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHalliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd Edition). London: Arnold.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHao, X., & J. Sivell (2002) Integrating Reading and Writing in EFL composition in China. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 25-28.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHasan, R. (1978). On the notion of a text. In J. S. Petöfi (ed.) Text vs. sentence. Hamburg: H. Buske.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension. Delaware: International Reading Association, pp. l8l-219.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHawes, T., & S., Thomas. (1996). Rhetorical uses of theme in newspaper editorials. World Englishes, 15(2), 159-170.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHawes, T., & S., Thomas. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing. RELC Journal, 28(2), 35-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHeuring, D. L. (1984, March). Revision strategies of ESL writers: Five case studies. Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston, TX.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHoenisch, S. (2009). Topical structure analysis of accomplished English prose. Unpublished master’s thesis, The City University of New York.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHoey, M. (1991). Patterns if lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHorowitz, D. (1986). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHuang, L. M., & Tang, J. C. (1997). A case study on using writing conferences and peer group review in teaching English composition in senior high school. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on English Teaching, pp. 263-282. Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Presszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceHyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIntaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJanssen, D., van Waes, L., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In C.M. Levy and S. Randsdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 233-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJohn, P. D. & Gilchrist, I. (1999). Flying solo: Understanding the post-lesson dialogue between student teacher and mentor. Mentoring & Tutoring, 7(2), 101-111.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJones, S. (1985). Problems with monitor use in second language composing. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies on Writers’ Block and Other Composing Problems (pp. 96-118). New York, New York: Guilford Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJones, S., & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in Real Modeling Production Processes (pp. 34-57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKieras, D. (1981). Component processes in the comprehension of simple prose. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(1), 1-23.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKnoch, U. (1997). Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Auckland.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKnoch, U. (2007). Do empirically developed rating scales function differently to conventional rating scales for academic writing? Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 5, 1–36.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKopple, W. J. V. (1982). Functional sentence perspective and some related recent work in discourse analysis. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Great Lakes Area Rhetoric Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKopple, W. J. V. (1991). Themes, thematic progression, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8(3), 311-347.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 37-56). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKrashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and application. Oxford: Pergamon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 140-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLan, L. M. (2008). Thematic progression and cohesive devices: An approach to English reading. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLarsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLautamatti, L. (1987). Observation in the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87-114). MA: Addison-Wesley.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, I. (1998). Enhancing ESL students` awareness of coherence-creating mechanisms in writing. TESL Canada Journal, 15(2), 36-49.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, I. (2008a). Students reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-164.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, I. (2008b). Understanding teacher’s written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLee, Y. L. (2009). The Application of Communicative Dynamism and Thematic Progression Models in the Analysis of Biology-related Text. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLeki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annuals, 24, 203-218.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLeki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, H. H. (2009). 98學年度學科能力測驗試題分析(英文考科). Retrieved April 15, 2011, from the College Entrance Examination Center.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLi, H. F. & Liu, Y. Y. (2005). Thematic Progression, Register Consistency and Text Coherence. US-China Foreign Language, 3(7), 55-58.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLi, Y. (2009). On the significance of theme and thematic progression in the development of text. Sino-US English Teaching, 6(2), 61-66.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, T. L. (2000). Student revision from teacher feedback in a writing conference. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching, pp. 448-459. Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLiu, D. (2000). Writing cohesion: Using content lexical ties in ESOL. English Teaching Forum, 38(1), 28-33.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLiu, W. T. (2009). The Combination of Topical Structure Analysis and Lexical Cohesion as a Strategy for Improving Coherence in Writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLowenthal, D. (1980). Mixing levels of revision. Visible Language, 14(4), 383-387.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMackay, R. (1987). Teaching the information gathering skills. In M. H. Long and J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of reading (pp. 248-258). Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMathesius, V. (1975). Functional sentence analysis. In J. Vachek (Ed.), A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis, 81-85. Paris, The Hague: Mouton.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMatsuda, P.K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In Barbra K. (ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15-34). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMatsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdés R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower and higher-achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103, 1-25.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence—Evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In E. Ventola. & A. Mauranen, A. (Eds.), Academic writing: intercultural and textual issues (pp. 195-210). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMcCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 667–676.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMerriam, S. B. (1992). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd ed.) USA: Jossey-Bass.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMeyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMo, Chien-ching. (1991). An extended topic chain: A paragraph development model for Chinese learners of English. Journal of Chengchi University, 62, 285-309. Taipei: National Chengchi University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMohan, B. A., & Lo, W. (1985). Academic Writing and Chinese Students: Transfer and Developmental Factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMohan, T A., & Lo, W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMonahan, B. D. (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 288-301.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMurray, D. M. (1997). Teach writing as a process not product. In V. Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (pp. 3-6). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMurray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. R. Donovan and W. McClelland (eds.), Eight Approaches to the Teaching of Composition (pp. 3-20). Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMustaffa, R., and Aman, I. (2007). Thematic progression in the writings of undergraduate LEP learners. The International Journal of Learning, 14(9), 67-82.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMyers, M. (1983). Approaches to the teaching of composition. In M. Myers and J. Gray (eds.), Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Composition: Processing, Distancing and Modeling (pp. 3-44). Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNew, E. (1990). Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A qualitative and quantitative look at the process of revision. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 80-97.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNold, E. (1981). Revising. In C. Fredericksen & J. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature development and teaching of written communication (pp. 67-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNunan, D. (1994). On the psychological plausibility of ‘topic’ as a construct in research on writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 17, 25-37.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNwogu, K. (1995). Structuring Scientific Discourse Using the Given-New Perspective. Forum, 33(4). Available online: http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol33/no4/p22.htm.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceNwogu, K., & T., Bloor. (1991). Thematic progression in professional and popular medical texts. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systematic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp. 73-105). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOuk, D. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric: Cohesive devices and topical structure analysis of editorializing paragraphs in American English and Cambodian English. Jurnal Sastra Inggris, 8(3), 163-179.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceOxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePappas, C., C. (1985) The cohesive harmony and cohesive density of children`s oral and written stories. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (Eds.), Systematic perspectives on discourse volume 2: Selected applied papers from the 9th international systemic workshop (pp. 169-186). New Jersey: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePatthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. R. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college compositions. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 51-90.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePaulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePerez, S. A. (2000). Revising during writing in a second grade classroom. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(1), 27-32.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePerl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(4), 317-336.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePerl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 363-369.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePing, A. L. (2004). Delimiting the theme of the English clause–an inference-boundary account. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17, 167–187.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePorte, G. (1995). Writing wrongs: Copying as a learning strategy for underachieving EFL writers. English Language Teaching Journal, 49, 144-151.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePorte, G. (1996). When writing fails: How academic context and past learning experiences shape revision. System, 24, 107-116.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePorte, G. (1997). The etiology of poor second language writing: The influence of perceived teacher preferences on second language revision strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 61-78.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePorter, P. A., Goldstein, L. M., Leatherman, J. & Conrad, S. (1990). An ongoing dialogue: Learning logs for teacher preparation. In J. Richards and D. Nunan (eds.), Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRaimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19, 229-258.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRaimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37(3), 439-469.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRavelli, L. J. (1995). A dynamic perspective: Implications for metafunctional interaction and an understanding of theme. In R. Hasan and P. H. Fries (eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (pp. 187-234). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceReichardt, C. S. & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D., Cook and C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 39-67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceReid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceReid, J. (1997). Responding to ESL student language problems: Error analysis and revision plans. In J.M. Reid and P. Byrd, Grammar in the composition classroom (pp. 118-137). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRen, S., Cao, Y. J., Cao, Y & Li, Q. (2009). Thematic operational approachzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand the writing teaching of college English. Asian Social Science, 5(11),zh_TW
dc.relation.reference141-146.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRenkema, J. (1993). Discourse studies. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRohman, D. G. (1965). Prewriting: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16(2), 106-112.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRose, M. (1984). Writers’ block: The cognitive dimension. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRothschild, D., & F. Klingenberg. (1990). Self and peer evaluation of writing in the interactive ESL classroom: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal, 8, 52-65.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRubin. J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177-198.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSade, O. C. (2007). Thematic progression in Christian written discourse in Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 64-68.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSaito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchneider, M. & U. Connor. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 411–427.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchumman, F. M. and Schumman, J. H. (1977). Diary of a language learner: An introspective study of second language learning. In H. D. Brown, R. H. Crymes, and C. A. Yorio (eds.), On TESOL ’77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 241-249). Washington, DC: TESOL.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSchwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147-163.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceScott, V. (1996). Rethinking Foreign Writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSheen, Y. (2006). Corrective feedback, individual differences, and the acquisition of English articles by second language learners. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShen, H. L. (2004). Improving coherence in high school students’ English composition through instruction of topical development. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSilva, T. (1990).Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSilva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSimpson, J. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293-309.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, C. (2001) Writing Instruction: Changing Views over the Years. ERIC Digest D155. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication: Indiana University. Bloomington, IN.Web site: http://eric.indiana.edu. Site accessed 20 August 2001.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, F. (1982). Writing and the writer. London: Heinemann Educational Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 23-31.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSommers, N. (1992). Between the drafts. College Composition and Communication, 43, 378-388.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSperling, M. (1990). I want to talk to each of you: Collaboration and the teacher-students writing conference. Research in the Teaching of English, 24 (3), 279-321.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStallard, C. K. (1974). An alalysis of the writing behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206-218.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStenhouse, L. (1983). Case study in educational research and evaluation. In L. Bartlett, S. Kemmis, and G. Gillard (eds.), Case Study: An Overview. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 5-13.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTierney, R. J., & Mosenthal, J. H. (1983). Cohesion and textual coherence. Research in the Teaching of English, 17(3), 215-229.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTruscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTruscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTruscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTruscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error Correction, revision and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTsao, C. W. (2004). Translation from L1 into L2 and Vocational Senior High School Students L2 Writing: Coherence as a Focus. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTseng, Y. T. (2008). Textual Cohesion in Taiwanese College Students` English Writing: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners` processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 271-294.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVande Kopple, W. J. (1986). Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.). Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches (pp. 72-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVann, R., & R., Abraham (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177-198.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVeluz, O. (1992). TSA as basis for evaluating coherence in student writing and for developing self-learning materials to teach coherence in written discourse. Unpublished dissertation, De La Salle University-Manila, Phillippines.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVentola, E., & A., Mauranen. (1991). Non-native writing and revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systematic linguistics: approaches and uses (pp. 457-492). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVictori, M. (1999). An anlaysis of written knowledge in EFL composing : A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceVillamil O. S. & M. C. M. de Guerrero. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, meditating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWang, E. Y. (2008). Argumentative Writing Strategies and Writing Process Strategies Used by EFL College Freshmen and Juniors: A Case Study. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWang, Y. F. (1998). Facilitating EFL reading by teaching text cohesive ties. The proceeding of the seventh international symposium on English teaching (pp. 855-866). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWatson Todd, R. (1998). Topic-based analysis of classroom discourse. System, 26(3), 303–318.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWatson Todd, R., Thienpermpool, P. & Keyuravong, S. (2004). Measuring the coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing, 9, 85-104.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWatson Todd, R., Khongput, S. & P., Darasawang. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’ academic essays. Assessing Writing, 12, 10-25.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Presszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeissberg, R. C. (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models from scientific English. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 485-500.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeir, C. (1990). Communicative language testing. New York: Prentice-Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeir, C. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. New York: Prentice-Hall.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeissberg, R. C. (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models from scientific English. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 485-500.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWenden. A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWiddowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWitte, S. P. (1983a). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34, 313-341.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWitte, S. P. (1983b). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgments of students’ writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYang, M., Badger, R & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Learning, 15, 179-200.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYang, X. (2008). Thematic progression analysis in teaching explanation writing. English language Teaching, 1(1), 29-33.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYeh, C. C. (2001). Conferencing in a college composition classroom. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, pp. 165-176. Taipei: Crane.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYule, G. (1996). The Study of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1983a). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1983b). Teaching those missing links in writing. ELT Journal, 37(1), 22-29.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZamel, V. (1987). Recent research in writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 697-715.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZhou, X. H. (2007). Application of English cohesion theory in the teaching of writing to Chinese graduate students. US-China Education Review, 4(7), 31-37.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceZhu, Y. (1997). An analysis of structural moves in Chinese sales letters. Text, 17(4), 543-566.zh_TW
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
101101.pdf3.38 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.