英文學術論文篇章寫作教學研究: 學生的認知及需求

An Intervention Study on the Rhetorical Structures of Research Papers: Students' Perceptions and Needs

孫庭芳(Ting-fang Sun)

指導教授 ： 馮和平

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2011年)

摘要

本研究宗旨為測試英文學術寫作課程對於教論文寫作中的「前言」及「討論」這兩個部分的效用。受試者為二十二位研究生，他們來自北部一所大學生命科學研究所。此研究是採用前測及後測的準實驗模式。前測的分數來自於學生在課程開始時所交之文章的評量結果。在第一堂課時，受試者填寫一份背景問卷，這份問卷是針對受試者的過去寫作經驗做調查。在前測後，受試者參與學術文章中的「前言」及「討論」章節的教學。在前後八次，每次三小時的教學課程中，前五次是教授「前言」的寫作。而後三次的教學是教授「討論」的寫作。 課程完成後進行後測。後測是要求根據課堂中所學到章法結構，將前測文章加以修改。此外，受試者在最後一堂課時，填寫一份評量問卷。這份問卷是針對受試者的過去寫作經驗及對此寫作工作坊的評價做調查。在課程結束後，研究者挑選六位學生進行個別訪談，目的在於更深入的了解學生的困難及需要，每次訪談時間為90分鐘。
在比較受試者「前言」及「討論」的前測及後測的分數後，發現受試者在「前言」的分數並無顯著的進步，但在「討論」的分數卻有顯著的進步。結果顯示， 經過一個月的教學，學生在「前言」這部分的表現並未達到統計上顯著的結果。而「討論」部分則有顯著的進步。這樣的差別也許是源自於有改寫「討論」部分的學生，大部分為博士生。 他們相較於碩士生而言，有較多的學術寫作經驗。
在對問卷及訪談的資料作分析後，發現受試者一般寫作(general writing)最主要的問題是字彙及文法的不足。而在學術寫作方面，則是沒有章法的技巧及文章結構方面的知識。受試者也反應他們需要多一些實際分析他們領域學術文章章法結構的練習。對於學術寫作老師的背景，受試者期望最好能夠是教專業領域的老師與教英文寫作的老師能夠一起協同教學。受試者也表達了他們迫切地需要一個寫作中心來提供文章編修的服務及安排各種寫作的課程。受試者心目中最理想的編修者是他們領域的英文母語人士。此外，學生似乎在他們基礎的英文能力上，需要一些幫助。 研究者建議在學術寫作的課程之外，學生也非常需要關於英文基本寫作方面的課程來提升他們基本的英文能力。如果學生有足夠的基本英文寫作能力，將有助於學生提升他們的學術寫作的能力。

關鍵字

學術論文寫作 ； 篇章結構

並列摘要

The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of an EAP writing workshop that focused on the teaching of introduction and discussion sections in research papers. The participants included 22 graduate students from the Life Science department in a university in northern Taiwan. This study employed a one group quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design. In the first class, participants submitted a paper they wrote before, from which the pre-test score was obtained.
Participants also filled in a background questionnaire, which surveyed students’ experiences in learning writing in English. After that, students received instructions in the writing of research article introduction and discussion sections. For the introduction section, students received about fifteen hours of instruction; for the discussion section, students received about nine hours of instruction. For the post-test, participants revised their pre-test writing samples based on what they learned in the class. At the last meeting, the participants were asked to fill in an evaluative questionnaire, eliciting their opinions on the workshop. At the end of the workshop, six participants were selected to participate in individual interview, with each interview lasting 90 minutes.
The comparison of the pretest and post-test scores on the rhetorical structure of the introduction and discussion sections showed that the participants did not improve significantly in the introduction section, but they did in the discussion section. The results indicated this one-month EAP writing workshop did not have statistically significant results on the introduction section. The discussion section was statistically significant, which may be related to the higher percentage of doctoral students handed in their discussion sections.
The analysis of the questionnaire and interview data revealed that the participants’major problems for general writing lied in incompetence in vocabulary and grammar. The major challenge they had for academic writing was their lack of rhetorical skills and knowledge for organization. The participants wanted to have more hands-on analyses of the papers taken from their fields by themselves during the class. As with the EAP writing instructor, the participants wanted to have both the content area teacher and the language teacher to instruct the class together. The participants also expressed their urgent need for a writing center that can offer editorial services and courses. The ideal editor would be a native speaker from their field. The participants seem to be weak at their fundamental English ability. It is suggested that more general writing courses can be offered to the students to raise their basic competence in English. Students will be more competent to learn to write EAP writing when they are equipped with the general writing ability.

並列關鍵字

academic writing ； rhetorical structure

參考文獻

Fan, Y. (2007). Topical structure analysis as an alternative learning strategy for coherent writing. Unpublished master thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Aarons, V., & Salomon, W. A. (1989). The writing center and writing across the curriculum: some observations on theory and practice. Focuses, 2, 91-102.

Ahmad, U. (1997). Research article introductions in Malay: rhetoric in an emerging research community. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of Academic Discourse (pp. 273-304). Berlin: mouton de Gryuter.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: language us in professional settings. London: Longman.

Biber, D., Johansson, S, Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London, Longman Publications Group.