Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 讀寫結合教學於高中英文寫作教學之研究
Teaching Reading-writing Connection to High School EFL Writers作者 黃沁瑞
Huang, Qin-Rui貢獻者 劉怡君
Liu, Yi Chun
黃沁瑞
Huang, Qin-Rui關鍵詞 讀寫結合
範文寫作
寫作式閱讀
挖礦
寫作表現
讀者覺察
修辭策略
Reading-writing connection
modeling
writerly reading
mining
writing outcomes
audience awareness
rhetorical strategy日期 2020 上傳時間 3-Aug-2020 18:32:40 (UTC+8) 摘要 由於讀寫結合教學於高中英文寫作教學的相關研究較少，本研究試圖探討讀寫結合教學對高中生英文寫作表現和修辭策略策略的影響，以及學生對讀寫結合教學的看法。兩個高三班級分為實驗組和對照組，參與十五週的寫作教學。第一週進行看圖作文初試，之後實驗組接受額外的「範文寫作」，「寫作式閱讀」，以及注意用字、指涉語等的「挖礦」練習。實驗組除了理解寫作基本架構，「如何」運用文法句型、用字遣詞外，他們也須站在作者的角度去思考讀者與寫作目的，思考作者「為何」運用這些策略並達到什麼效果。而對照組仍舊進行傳統的文法翻譯教學，並無了解寫作策略背後的原因。第八週時進行第一次複試，題型亦為看圖作文，背後假設為實驗組由於有考慮到讀者為大考評審老師，因此會使用許多較複雜的字彙和句型。最後一週則進行第二次複試，題型為寫一封信給自己身邊親近的人去澄清誤會，取得諒解。背後假設為實驗組考慮到讀者為親近的人，將使用更多口語用法，句型也較簡單。研究結果符合預期假設：實驗組在兩次複試寫作表現上皆顯著優於對照組，顯示讀寫結合的教學更能增進學生寫作能力。修辭策略分析發現實驗組比起對照組有更佳的讀者覺察，能針對不同對象使用不同修辭策略，並且能使用更多修辭策略來達到溝通目的。問卷調查則發現學生多半肯定讀寫結合教學，但也反映需要更多練習及更有趣的閱讀題材。本研究亦提供英文寫作教學上的建議。
Due to the paucity of related research in teaching reading-writing connection (RWC) to EFL high school writers, this research investigates how RWC pedagogy affected Taiwanese novice writers’ rhetorical strategies and writing outcomes. Two classes of twelfth-graders were divided into experimental group and control group. The pedagogy lasted for 15 weeks. Pretest, in the form of picture-based narrative, was administered in the first week. After that, experimental group received extra RWC activities including modeling, writerly reading, and mining. Students in the experimental group not only learned basic writing principles, knowing “how” to manage pattern and word usage, but also read in writers’ shoes, considered their readers and the writing purpose, thinking “why” writers used certain rhetorical strategies and what effects they had achieved. On the other hand, students in the control group received the traditional grammar translation teaching, without thinking the reasons behind the rhetorical strategies. The first writing posttest, also in the form of picture-based narrative, was administered in the eighth week. The hypothesis was that students of experimental group considered their readers to be professional graders, and they used more sophisticated patterns and words. The second writing posttest was administered in the last week; students were asked to write a letter to people close to them to explain and clarify a misunderstanding to earn their forgiveness. The hypothesis was that students of experimental group considered their reader and used more colloquial phrases and simpler patterns. The results corresponded to the hypotheses: Analysis of writing outcomes revealed that students of experimental group were significantly better than those of control group, suggesting that RWC could better benefit students’ writing. Analysis of rhetorical strategy suggested that students of the experimental group had better sense of audience awareness. They could adjust their rhetorical strategies based on different readers. They also applied more rhetorical strategies to reach effective communication. Students’ questionnaires revealed that most of them agreed that RWC pedagogy enhanced their writing and that reading and writing should be taught together. However, they also reported that more practice and more interesting topic for reading were needed. This research also provides pedagogical implication and suggestion for English writing.參考文獻 Abbuhl, R. (2011). Using Models in Writing Instruction: A Comparison With Native and Nonnative Speakers of English. SAGE Open.Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 419-434. doi: 10.1037/a0035692Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5(1), 10-18.Berkenkotter, C. (1981). Understanding a Writer`s Awareness of Audience. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 388-399. doi: 10.2307/356601Berrill, D. (1992). Issues of audience: Egocentrism revisited. In R. Andrews (Ed.), Rebirth of rhetoric: Essays in language, culture and education (pp. 81-101). London: Routledge.Blumenfeld, B. P. (2012). Rhetoric, Referential Communication, and the Novice Writer. Legal Comm. & Rhetoric: JAWLD, 9, 207.Carson, J. E. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 88-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to Write in a Genre: What Student Writers Take from Model Texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(1), 88-125.Chen, F.-R. (2003). A Study of the Writing Process and Audience Awareness of the Writers with Different Abilities. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 16(1), 63-88.Chen, F.-R. (2007). Writing to be Read: A Study of Young Writer`s Composing for Contrasting Audiences. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 38(3), 291-310.Chen, M.-Z. (2012). Senior high school EFL teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices on writing instruction: a qualitative case study. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chengchi University, Taipei.Chen, S.-j. (2003). Bridging the Gap Between Reading and Writing in English Writing Instruction for Senior High School Students. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.Crowhurst, M., & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and Mode of Discourse Effects on Syntactic Complexity in Writing at Two Grade Levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 101-109.Eckhoff, B. (1983). How Reading Affects Children`s Writing. Language Arts, 60(5), 607-616.Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155-171. doi: 10.2307/358093Fang, Y.-J. (2016). A Study of the Effects of Model-based Writing Instruction and Process-oriented Writing Instruction on Taiwanese High School Students` Engilsh Writing performance and Writing Apprehension. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Taipei University of Education, Taipei.Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and Writing Relations and Their Development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1982). Story schemata: Metatextual aid to reading and writing. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction (pp. 262-268). Rochester, N. Y.: National Reading Conference.Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 15-47).Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242).Greene, S. (1993). Exploring the relationship between authorship and reading. In A. M. Penrose & B. M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the College Writing Classroom. Social and Cognitive Studies in Writing and Literacy (pp. 33-51). New York: Oxford University Press.Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition : new directions for teaching: [New York, N.Y.] : National Conference on Research in EnglishUrbana, Ill. : ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, 1986.Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press.Hsu, R.-r. (2007). A Study of the Effects of Dialogue Journal Writing and Guided Writing on Taiwanese High School Students` Writing Proficiency and Writing Apprehension. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.Hung, Y.-p. (2008). Effects of model writing and creative writing on learning of english compositions for twelfth graders. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.Jung, E. H. S. (2004). Interlanguage pragmatics: Apology speech acts. In C. L. Moder & A. Martinovie-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across language and culture (pp. 99-116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Exploring the Reading–Writing Connection: A Yearlong Classroom-Based Experimental Study of Middle School Students Developing Literacy in a New Language. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 143-164. doi: 10.1002/rrq.132Lee, Y.-H. (2013). A Study of College Students` Audience Awareness － Peer Review in an English Writing Course. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chung Hsing University, Taichung. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u7pv23Li, Y.-C. (2011). The Effects of Model Writing on Senior High School Students’ Writing. (Unpublished master`s thesis), Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan.Liang, Z. (2011). An Investigation of EFL College Students` Audience Awareness in Argumentative Writing. (Unpublished master`s thesis), Tunghai University, Taichung. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ug8md4Lin, S.-h. (2007). A Case Study of Model-based Writing Instruction in Senior High School English Class. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chengchi University, Taipei.Lu, X. (2011). A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐level ESL writers` language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62.Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33-48.Nehal, R. (2004). Investigating the audience awareness of ESL writers. South Asian Language Review, 8.Oswald, R. A. (2002). The story of Molly: Using audience awareness in a second-grade writers` workshop. Ohio Reading Teacher, 35(2), 20.Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 26(1), 127-140.Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 466-477.Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 116-123.Shanahan, T., & Tierney, R. J. (1990). Reading-writing connections: The relations among three perspectives. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 39, 13-34.Shih, M. (1999). More Than Practicing Language: Communicative Reading and Writing for Asian Settings. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 20-25. doi: 10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00207.xSkibniewski, L., & Skibniewska, M. (1986). Experimental study: The writing processes of intermediate/advanced foreign language learners in their foreign and native languages.Stolarek, E. A. (1994). Prose Modeling and Metacognition: The Effect of Modeling on Developing a Metacognitive Stance toward Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(2), 154-174.Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on Reading/Writing Relationships: A Synthesis and Suggested Directions. Language Arts, 60(5), 627-642.Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students` comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 134-146.Watson, C. B. (1982). The Use and Abuse of Models in the ESL Writing Class. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 5-14.Yang, H.-H. (2009). Effects of problem-posing dialogue journal writing on problem-posing skills, audience awareness, and peer response of efl senior high students. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University.Yao, S.-F. (2003). A Study of Integrating Reading and Writing in a Senior High School Classroom. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.Yoshimura, F. (2009). Effects of connecting reading and writing and a checklist to guide the reading process on EFL learners’ learning about English writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1871-1883. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英語教學碩士在職專班
102951001資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102951001 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 劉怡君 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Liu, Yi Chun en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃沁瑞 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Qin-Rui en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃沁瑞 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Huang, Qin-Rui en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Aug-2020 18:32:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Aug-2020 18:32:40 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Aug-2020 18:32:40 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102951001 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131299 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英語教學碩士在職專班 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102951001 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 由於讀寫結合教學於高中英文寫作教學的相關研究較少，本研究試圖探討讀寫結合教學對高中生英文寫作表現和修辭策略策略的影響，以及學生對讀寫結合教學的看法。兩個高三班級分為實驗組和對照組，參與十五週的寫作教學。第一週進行看圖作文初試，之後實驗組接受額外的「範文寫作」，「寫作式閱讀」，以及注意用字、指涉語等的「挖礦」練習。實驗組除了理解寫作基本架構，「如何」運用文法句型、用字遣詞外，他們也須站在作者的角度去思考讀者與寫作目的，思考作者「為何」運用這些策略並達到什麼效果。而對照組仍舊進行傳統的文法翻譯教學，並無了解寫作策略背後的原因。第八週時進行第一次複試，題型亦為看圖作文，背後假設為實驗組由於有考慮到讀者為大考評審老師，因此會使用許多較複雜的字彙和句型。最後一週則進行第二次複試，題型為寫一封信給自己身邊親近的人去澄清誤會，取得諒解。背後假設為實驗組考慮到讀者為親近的人，將使用更多口語用法，句型也較簡單。研究結果符合預期假設：實驗組在兩次複試寫作表現上皆顯著優於對照組，顯示讀寫結合的教學更能增進學生寫作能力。修辭策略分析發現實驗組比起對照組有更佳的讀者覺察，能針對不同對象使用不同修辭策略，並且能使用更多修辭策略來達到溝通目的。問卷調查則發現學生多半肯定讀寫結合教學，但也反映需要更多練習及更有趣的閱讀題材。本研究亦提供英文寫作教學上的建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Due to the paucity of related research in teaching reading-writing connection (RWC) to EFL high school writers, this research investigates how RWC pedagogy affected Taiwanese novice writers’ rhetorical strategies and writing outcomes. Two classes of twelfth-graders were divided into experimental group and control group. The pedagogy lasted for 15 weeks. Pretest, in the form of picture-based narrative, was administered in the first week. After that, experimental group received extra RWC activities including modeling, writerly reading, and mining. Students in the experimental group not only learned basic writing principles, knowing “how” to manage pattern and word usage, but also read in writers’ shoes, considered their readers and the writing purpose, thinking “why” writers used certain rhetorical strategies and what effects they had achieved. On the other hand, students in the control group received the traditional grammar translation teaching, without thinking the reasons behind the rhetorical strategies. The first writing posttest, also in the form of picture-based narrative, was administered in the eighth week. The hypothesis was that students of experimental group considered their readers to be professional graders, and they used more sophisticated patterns and words. The second writing posttest was administered in the last week; students were asked to write a letter to people close to them to explain and clarify a misunderstanding to earn their forgiveness. The hypothesis was that students of experimental group considered their reader and used more colloquial phrases and simpler patterns. The results corresponded to the hypotheses: Analysis of writing outcomes revealed that students of experimental group were significantly better than those of control group, suggesting that RWC could better benefit students’ writing. Analysis of rhetorical strategy suggested that students of the experimental group had better sense of audience awareness. They could adjust their rhetorical strategies based on different readers. They also applied more rhetorical strategies to reach effective communication. Students’ questionnaires revealed that most of them agreed that RWC pedagogy enhanced their writing and that reading and writing should be taught together. However, they also reported that more practice and more interesting topic for reading were needed. This research also provides pedagogical implication and suggestion for English writing. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Table of ContentsAcknowledgements ivTable of Contents vList of Tables viChinese Abstract viiEnglish Abstract viiiCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5Theory of Reading-writing Connections 5Teaching RWC 7Research on Teaching RWC to Taiwan High School EFL Writers 10CHAPTER 3 METHOD 17Research Design 17Participants 19RWC Pedagogy 20Instruments 24Writing pretest/posttests 24Questionnaire 25Data Analysis 25CHAPTER 4 RESULT 31How does RWC pedagogy affect Taiwanese novice writers’ writing outcomes andrhetorical strategies? 31What are students’ response to RWC pedagogy? 34CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 41CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 45REFERENCE 47APPENDICES 53 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2593173 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102951001 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 讀寫結合 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 範文寫作 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 寫作式閱讀 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 挖礦 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 寫作表現 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 讀者覺察 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 修辭策略 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reading-writing connection en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) modeling en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) writerly reading en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) mining en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) writing outcomes en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) audience awareness en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) rhetorical strategy en_US dc.title (題名) 讀寫結合教學於高中英文寫作教學之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Teaching Reading-writing Connection to High School EFL Writers en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abbuhl, R. (2011). Using Models in Writing Instruction: A Comparison With Native and Nonnative Speakers of English. SAGE Open.Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 419-434. doi: 10.1037/a0035692Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5(1), 10-18.Berkenkotter, C. (1981). Understanding a Writer`s Awareness of Audience. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 388-399. doi: 10.2307/356601Berrill, D. (1992). Issues of audience: Egocentrism revisited. In R. Andrews (Ed.), Rebirth of rhetoric: Essays in language, culture and education (pp. 81-101). London: Routledge.Blumenfeld, B. P. (2012). Rhetoric, Referential Communication, and the Novice Writer. Legal Comm. & Rhetoric: JAWLD, 9, 207.Carson, J. E. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 88-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to Write in a Genre: What Student Writers Take from Model Texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(1), 88-125.Chen, F.-R. (2003). A Study of the Writing Process and Audience Awareness of the Writers with Different Abilities. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 16(1), 63-88.Chen, F.-R. (2007). Writing to be Read: A Study of Young Writer`s Composing for Contrasting Audiences. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 38(3), 291-310.Chen, M.-Z. (2012). Senior high school EFL teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices on writing instruction: a qualitative case study. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chengchi University, Taipei.Chen, S.-j. (2003). Bridging the Gap Between Reading and Writing in English Writing Instruction for Senior High School Students. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143-159.Crowhurst, M., & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and Mode of Discourse Effects on Syntactic Complexity in Writing at Two Grade Levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 101-109.Eckhoff, B. (1983). How Reading Affects Children`s Writing. Language Arts, 60(5), 607-616.Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155-171. doi: 10.2307/358093Fang, Y.-J. (2016). A Study of the Effects of Model-based Writing Instruction and Process-oriented Writing Instruction on Taiwanese High School Students` Engilsh Writing performance and Writing Apprehension. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Taipei University of Education, Taipei.Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and Writing Relations and Their Development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1982). Story schemata: Metatextual aid to reading and writing. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction (pp. 262-268). Rochester, N. Y.: National Reading Conference.Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 15-47).Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242).Greene, S. (1993). Exploring the relationship between authorship and reading. In A. M. Penrose & B. M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the College Writing Classroom. Social and Cognitive Studies in Writing and Literacy (pp. 33-51). New York: Oxford University Press.Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition : new directions for teaching: [New York, N.Y.] : National Conference on Research in EnglishUrbana, Ill. : ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education, 1986.Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press.Hsu, R.-r. (2007). A Study of the Effects of Dialogue Journal Writing and Guided Writing on Taiwanese High School Students` Writing Proficiency and Writing Apprehension. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.Hung, Y.-p. (2008). Effects of model writing and creative writing on learning of english compositions for twelfth graders. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.Jung, E. H. S. (2004). Interlanguage pragmatics: Apology speech acts. In C. L. Moder & A. Martinovie-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across language and culture (pp. 99-116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Exploring the Reading–Writing Connection: A Yearlong Classroom-Based Experimental Study of Middle School Students Developing Literacy in a New Language. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 143-164. doi: 10.1002/rrq.132Lee, Y.-H. (2013). A Study of College Students` Audience Awareness － Peer Review in an English Writing Course. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chung Hsing University, Taichung. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u7pv23Li, Y.-C. (2011). The Effects of Model Writing on Senior High School Students’ Writing. (Unpublished master`s thesis), Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Tainan.Liang, Z. (2011). An Investigation of EFL College Students` Audience Awareness in Argumentative Writing. (Unpublished master`s thesis), Tunghai University, Taichung. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ug8md4Lin, S.-h. (2007). A Case Study of Model-based Writing Instruction in Senior High School English Class. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chengchi University, Taipei.Lu, X. (2011). A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐level ESL writers` language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62.Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33-48.Nehal, R. (2004). Investigating the audience awareness of ESL writers. South Asian Language Review, 8.Oswald, R. A. (2002). The story of Molly: Using audience awareness in a second-grade writers` workshop. Ohio Reading Teacher, 35(2), 20.Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 26(1), 127-140.Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 466-477.Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 116-123.Shanahan, T., & Tierney, R. J. (1990). Reading-writing connections: The relations among three perspectives. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 39, 13-34.Shih, M. (1999). More Than Practicing Language: Communicative Reading and Writing for Asian Settings. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 20-25. doi: 10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00207.xSkibniewski, L., & Skibniewska, M. (1986). Experimental study: The writing processes of intermediate/advanced foreign language learners in their foreign and native languages.Stolarek, E. A. (1994). Prose Modeling and Metacognition: The Effect of Modeling on Developing a Metacognitive Stance toward Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(2), 154-174.Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on Reading/Writing Relationships: A Synthesis and Suggested Directions. Language Arts, 60(5), 627-642.Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students` comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 134-146.Watson, C. B. (1982). The Use and Abuse of Models in the ESL Writing Class. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 5-14.Yang, H.-H. (2009). Effects of problem-posing dialogue journal writing on problem-posing skills, audience awareness, and peer response of efl senior high students. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University.Yao, S.-F. (2003). A Study of Integrating Reading and Writing in a Senior High School Classroom. (Unpublished master`s thesis), National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi.Yoshimura, F. (2009). Effects of connecting reading and writing and a checklist to guide the reading process on EFL learners’ learning about English writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1871-1883. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202001128 en_US
