探討英語為母語及英語非母語寫作諮詢教師之信念與實務及學生感受

近年來，寫作諮詢已成為學生尋求寫作協助之重要工具，國外也紛紛投入寫作諮詢相關之研究，然而在台灣情境下，相關研究卻被忽略。許多學者指出，教師信念對於教師行為的影響甚大，Borg (2006)更提出三大形成教師信念之關鍵要素，包含教師過去語言學習經驗、教師專業訓練、以及教學環境因素。其中教學環境因素被視為對教師之信念實施最有影響力之一環。多數的教師信念及實務研究，多著重在主流及大範疇之教學領域，如文法教學、作文教學、閱讀教學等等，然而作文補助教學層面，如寫作諮詢，卻未獲得專家學者之重視。另外，雖然英語母語教師及非英語母語教師皆投入寫作諮詢教學工作，然而甚少研究投入探討其信念及教學實務，以及學生對於兩群教師提供寫作諮詢之感受。本研究透過Borg (2006)所提出的理論架構，包含過去語言學習經驗、教師專業訓練、以及教學環境因素，來檢視寫作諮詢教師信念形成，以及Ferris等人提出的教師回饋類型(1997)，驗證寫作諮詢教師的信念實踐情況。研究資料透過諮詢教師訪談、寫作諮詢錄音、以及學生訪談收集，並透過Borg之理論架構以及Ferris提出之基模加以分析。本研究發現，寫作諮詢教師之過去語言學習經驗、教師專業訓練、以及教學環境因素，對其信念及實務皆有相當影響力，然而教學環境因素對教師信念之實施的影響力最大，包含學校情境、寫作諮商時間限制、學生能力及語言學習背景、教師過去之寫作教學及諮詢經驗。在教師信念方面，英語為母語及英語非母語教師並無明顯差異，皆重視學生主動參與作文之修訂工作，期望透過寫作諮詢培養學生自主學習能力；然而在實務上，由於語言能力差異，則可明顯看出英語為母語教師對用字遣詞方面使用之自信及肯定。雖然以往的研究指出英語非母語教師傾向於重視文法層面問題，然而本研究發現兩位英語非母語教師較重視內容及架構上之問題。透過探查學生感受，學生認為英語為母語教師比英語非母語教師更有能力提供他們精確的用字遣詞，達到自然且成熟的語言使用，也表示喜歡母語教師之教學風格、信任其寫作諮詢專業。另外，學生認為英語非母語教師，能更了解他們的寫作困難、溝通上也更為容易，也肯定英語非母語教師之專業背景知識，點出寫作內容上之盲點與邏輯問題。本研究提出下列建議，首先，寫作中心或語言中心可提供訓練課程，協助寫作諮詢教師培養健全之信念及專業能力，以利其應對教學情境中各種不同因素。第二，在諮詢時間不足情況下，寫作諮詢教師應及時診斷學生寫作問題，另一方面，學生應於諮詢前準備好該文章寫作上的問題及困難，以達到有效的諮詢效果。最後，兩群諮商教師可透過本研究，參考學生回饋，了解教學實務與學生需求與期望之落差。

關鍵字

教師信念及實務；寫作諮詢；英語為母語及英語非母語寫作諮詢教師；學生感受

並列摘要

In recent years, researchers have been probing into how teacher cognition interacted with teaching practices in second language education to find out how different factors influence teachers’ cognition and practices. Borg (2006) proposed three perspectives to probe into teacher cognition, including their past language learning experiences, teacher training education, and contextual factors. Although there have been rich studies on teacher cognition, little attention has been paid to writing tutors who are working for the increasingly popular service, writing consultation, to help students from different disciplines refine their English writing. In addition, regarding writing consultation, both NES and NNES teachers, having different language competence and learning backgrounds, are serving as writing tutors. However, how different factors shape their cognition and practices and students’ perceptions of them received little attention. Borg’s theoretical framework was employed to examine the formation of writing tutors’ cognition. In addition, the researcher adapted the coding scheme developed by Ferris et al (1997) to investigate how the writing tutors implemented their cognition. Finally, students’ perceptions of NES and NNES were also reported by the use of a questionnaire and interviews. The finding revealed that the tutors’ past learning experiences, teacher education training, and contextual factors were found to shape their conception for consultation. Contextual factors, including the school context, regulations of writing consultation, students’ proficiency, students’ learning backgrounds, and past teaching experiences and consultation experiences in English writing, were the most influential factors that influenced the tutors’ cognition. After comparing the tutors’ cognition, the NES and NNES tutors did not seem to possess significant differences in their cognition. They both expect that students can be actively engaged in editing their errors and finally become autonomous writers. As for their consultation practices, NES tutors were found to be more capable of dealing with the word problems when compared with NNES tutors. Interestingly, although previous studies indicated that NNES teachers tended to be more intolerant with local problems, the NNES writing tutors in the current study were found to focus much more on global problems. On the other hand, through students’ reactions to the two groups of tutors, students were found to appreciate NES tutors’ language competence and the two NNES tutors’ expertise in offering them suggestions on the content and organization of their writing. The current study reported the following implications. First, language centers may consider offering trainings or orientations to facilitate writing tutors to establish cognition and repertoire for consultation. Second, to make effective consultation sessions, tutors can diagnose students’ writing problems as soon as a session begins to target their core difficulties; on the other hand, students are encouraged to prepare their writing problems beforehand. Finally, writing tutors can refer to students’ reactions that help to unveil the gap between students’ expectations and their consultation practices.

並列關鍵字

teacher cognition and practices ； writing consultation ； NES and NNES writing tutors ； students’ perceptions

參考文獻

A´rva, V. & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28, 355-372.

Barratt, L. and Kontra, E. (2000) Native English speaking teachers in cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal 9 (3), 19–23.

Benke, E. & P. Medgyes (2005). Differences in teaching behaviour between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In Llurda (ed.), 195–216.

Beijaard, D, Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107-128

Borg, E. & Deane, M. (2011). Measuring the Outcomes of Individualised Writing Instruction: A Multilayered Approach to Capturing Changes in Students’ Texts. Teaching in Higher Education, 16, 319–331

國際替代計量

探討英語為母語及英語非母語寫作諮詢教師之信念與實務及學生感受

全文下載

主題瀏覽