写作模式和效果的研究是写作教学关注的重点,但对于技术支持下如何将社会建构模式体现于整个写作过程的探索比较少,尤其是基于中国留学生学术英语写作课程的实证性研究几乎没有。本研究以美国明尼苏达大学27名中国留学生为对象,探究Moodle辅助下的合作型过程法学术写作模式对写作质量和写作能力发展的影响。对论文初、二、终稿总分的重复测量方差分析显示,学生写作质量逐步提高,教师反馈对写作质量提升有显著效果,而同伴反馈的影响作用不明显;对分项分的重复测量方差分析结果呈现相似特点,除文体外各分项内容得分有显著差异。对课程前/后写作测试配对样本t检验显示,写作能力有所提升。问卷调查结果进一步显示,多数学生对课程给予肯定,尤其是写作中的技术支持以及教师反馈,但对于同伴互评,语言复杂度方面认可度不高。探究国外高校中国留学生学术英语写作教学的模式和效果对我国同类课程的开展有一定的借鉴作用。
A number of researchers have investigated the models of writing and their effectiveness, but little research has been done on how social constructivism can be integrated in the whole process of writing with the aid of technology. This study is to evaluate an academic writing course that integrates social cooperation in the preparation, production and evaluation process of writing with the help of Moodle. Twenty-seven Chinese students in the University of Minnesota participated in the study. Repeated measures ANOVA and pairwise comparison of the general scores for first/second/final versions of research paper indicate that learners did improve the academic writing quality, and that teacher feedback had a significant effect on the improvement of the quality while the effect of peer review was not so significant. Repeated measures ANOVA of analytic scores for first/second/final versions demonstrates a similar result except for the writing style. A paired sample t-test of pre/post-course writing shows that students' writing competence has also been improved. A questionnaire investigation shows that most students had a high opinion of the course, especially of the teacher feedback and use of technology. However, peer-review was not preferred, and there was no increase in lexical and syntactical complexity. The investigation into the effect of the integrated academic writing course on Chinese overseas students will be of significance for the instruction and research of academic writing in China.
Beaugrande, R. 1985. Test linguistics in discourse studies [A]. In T. van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Vol. 1. Disciplines of Discourse [C]. London, Academic Press. 41-70.
Eckstein, G.J.C. & R.M. McCollum. 2011. Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic argument writing [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10(3):162-172.
Fernández, R.F. & P. Gunashekar. 2009. A socio-psycholinguistic model for English for specific purposes writing skill formation diagnosis [J]. ACIMED 20(6):141-160.
Flower, L. & J.R. Hayes. 1981. The cognitive process model of the composing process [J]. College Composition and Communication 32:365-380.
Gere, A.R. & R.S. Stevens. 1985. The language of writing groups: How oral response shapes revision [A]. In S.W. Freedman (ed.). The Acquisition of Written Language: Revision and Response [C]. Norwood: Ablex. 85-105.
Hayes, J.R. 1996. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing [A]. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (eds.). The Science of Writing [C]. Mahwah: Erlbaum. 1-27.
Hung, H.-C. & S.S.-C. Young. 2015. The effectiveness of adopting e-readers to facilitate EFL students’ process-based academic writing [J]. Educational Technology & Society 18(1):250-263.
Horstmanshof, L. & S.A. Brownie. 2013. Scaffolded approach to Discussion Board use for formative assessment of academic writing skills [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38(1):61-73.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuteeva, M. 2011. Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer–reader relationship [J]. English for Specific Purposes 30(1):44-57.
Lai, K. 2012. Assessing participation skills: Online discussions with peers [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37:933-947.
Likkel, L. 2012. Calibrated peer review essays increase student confidence in assessing their own writing [J]. Journal of College Science Teaching 41(3):42-47.
Morris, G. 2014. Using peer review to improve student writing [OL]. [2018-04-02]. http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UMICH/sweetland/Home/Instructors/Teaching%20Resources/UsingPeerReviewtoImproveStudentWriting.pdf.
Mullen, C.A. 2001. The need for a curricular writing model for graduate students [J]. Journal of Further and Higher Education 25(1):117-126.
Nystrand, M. 1989. A social-interactive model of writing [J]. Written Communication (6): 66-85.
Sengupta, S. 1998. Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’ [J]. ELT 52:19-28.
Sinclair, C. 2015. Students' perspectives on academic writing in the digital age [J]. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning 59(1):44-49.
Stone, C.A. 1998. The metaphor of scaffolding its utility for the field of learning disabilities [J]. Journal of Learning Disabilities 31:344-364.
Tatzl, D., W. Hassler, B. Messnarz & H. Flühr. 2012. The development of a project-based collaborative technical writing model founded on learner feedback in a tertiary aeronautical engineering program [J]. Technical Writing and Communication 42(3):279-304.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. 2007. Technology and writing [A]. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (eds.). The International Handbook of English Language Teaching [C]. Norwell: Springer. 907-912.
Yang, Y.F. 2011. A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing [J]. British Journal of Educational Technology 42: 687-700.
陈冰青、张荔. 2017. 基于自动作文评阅系统反馈的修改过程研究——以批改网为例[J]。当代外语研究(4):37-43.
郭晓英. 2009. 基于建构主义理论的大学英语写作教学研究[J]. 中国外语(4):72-76.
龚嵘、Fu Danling. 2011. 基于论坛的大学英语主题式交互性写作——任务动机视角[J]. 外语电化教学(5):15-20.
莫雷. 2002. 教育心理学[M]. 广东:广东高教出版社.
刘梅华、刘世生. 2014. 学术英语论文写作的过程、挑战与应对策略[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报(4):23-31.
司建国. 2007. 基于网络的高职英语过程写作教学模式研究[J]. 中国外语(4):42-46.
熊丽君、殷猛. 2009. 论非英语专业学术英语写作课堂的构建——基于中美学术英语写作的研究[J]. 外语教学(2):50-56.
修旭东. 2002. 英语写作测试中“理论效度”的理论依据模式[J]. 外语与外语教学(11):57-60.
杨玲. 2011. 以过程写作教学促进英语专业学生综合能力发展——美国加州大学圣巴巴拉分校一年级写作教学启示[J]. 外语界(4):83-88.
杨庆云. 2013. 基于WRM2.0在线系统的“双主交互”大学英语写作模式探究[J]. 大学英语教学与研究(5):18-24.
于夕真. 2007. 写作认知心理过程的研究与博客大学英语写作教学[J]. 外语电化教学(4):74-78.
赵珂、王志军、蔡莉. 2013. 基于计算机信息技术的英语学术写作能力发展模式[J]. 研究外语教学(5):56-60.
赵翊君、杨跃. 2013. 博客辅助英语专业过程写作教学模式的实证研究[J]. 外语电化教学(5):46-51.
