| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 英語學系 === 103 === The purpose of the present study aims to investigate the effects of the structure strategy training of compare/contrast writing (SSTCC) on EFL sophomore students’ English performance of compare/contrast writing. To begin with, the students’ performance of compare/contrast (C/C) writing and the number of words students generated before and after the SSTCC were compared. In addition, the student responses to the compare/contrast writing, the SSTCC activities and the self-evaluation checklists were examined. Moreover, the students’ preferences for writing prompts and C/C text structures were investigated. Finally, the students’ perceptions of the benefits, difficulties and their suggestions for the SSTCC were explored.
The participants, which involved 18 English major sophomores of National Kaohsiung National University, one course instructor and two raters, lasted for 14 weeks. Prior to the training, the participants took a pre-study English writing test and a background questionnaire. Subsequently, students went through two writing cycles, each lasting six to eight weeks. For each writing cycle, they had to undertake the three-stage writing activities: the brainstorming activities in the pre-writing stage, the idea-arranging activity in the writing stage and the self-evaluation activities in the post-writing stage. The SSTCC was conducted throughout the two writing cycles, in which in-class training lasted 1 hour per week for a total of 12 actual instructional hours. At the end of the writing program, a post-test, a post-study questionnaire and follow-up interviews were conducted.
All of the data collected during the writing were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. In quantitative analyses, a paired-sample t-test was administered to compare the participants’ English writing scores and the words generated before and after the SSTCC. Also, descriptive statistics was applied to investigate the student responses to the compare/contrast writing, the SSTCC activities, the self-evaluation checklists and their fondness for writing prompts and text structures. Finally, six open-ended questions in the post-study questionnaire and the follow-up interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1.There is a significant difference in the participants’ overall performance of compare/contrast writing. The mean score of the post-test is higher than that of the pretest, indicating the SSTCC helped promote the participants’ overall performance of C/C writing.
2.The number of words they generated before and after the SSTCC, indicating the SSTCC helped promote the participants’ writing fluency.
3.The majority of the participants were positive about the compare/contrast writing, the SSTCC activities and the materials. They agreed that they acquired two text structures and the employment of transitional words. Also, they benefited from the brainstorming activities and the self-evaluation activities.
4.The majority of the participants liked the prompt of comparing two English departments while they found the topic of comparing two books the most challenging. As for their fondness for the text structures, most of them tended to adopt the point-by-point method.
5.Students perceived several activities beneficial, such as the brainstorming activity and the self-evaluation activity.
6.Student responses to perceived benefits when receiving the training were categorized into seven aspects, including (a) learning two organizational structures of C/C writing, (b) improving writing weaknesses through the evaluation checklist and the self-evaluation sheet, (c) learning different perspectives from the brainstorming activities, (d) learning how to use the transitional words, (e) enhancing logical way of thinking, (f) arranging ideas in a logical order, and (g) cultivating the habit of reexamining the written drafts due to the self-evaluation activities.
7.The students’ difficulties can fall into five categories, including (a) the writing prompts, (b) the SSTCC worksheets, (c) compare/contrast writing, (d) arrangement of ideas and (e) limited vocabulary stock.
8.The participants’ suggestions for the SSTCC can be classified into five categories, including (a) the writing prompts, (b) the SSTCC activities, (c) teacher feedback, (d) time allocation, and (e) the design of worksheets.
With the empirical evidence revealed in this study, the researcher proposed three pedagogical suggestions for English writing instructors to incorporate into the classes:
1.Individual conferences must be held after students complete essays so that the teacher can provide in-depth direction and offer timely advice and assistance to students when difficulties arise.
2.Samples of the worksheets and articles related to the writing prompts should be provided in order that students are aware of the requirement of the tasks and are able to acquire the writing conventions and enhance their vocabulary stock.
3.Several training activities are suggested for writing instructors to incorporate into the writing classes when conducting the SSTCC, such as the brainstorming activities and the self-evaluation activities.
4.The instructor should be aware of the students’ attitudes toward worksheets and modify worksheets based on their opinions.
|
|---|
