【网学提醒】：本文主要为网上学习者提供The Application of the Process Approach to English Writing Teaching in Senior Middle School，希望对需要The Application of the Process Approach to English Writing Teaching in Senior Middle School网友有所帮助，学习一下吧!
资料包括： 论文(69页19886字)
说明：摘要：越来越多的高中英语教师意识到写作教学的重要性，教师和学生都付出很大的努力，然而英语写作对于大多数学生来说仍然感到非常困难，英语写作教学的效果仍然不理想。主要原因在于英语写作教学仍然遵循传统的“成果写作法”。在这种教学方法下，一方面大部分学生由于语言知识有限和对写作缺乏信心，不知道该如何写作，有的甚至逃避写作。另一方面，教师也经常抱怨批改作文的工作量非常大且效果不理想，这一现象反过来又加重了目前写作教学的低效性。
在外语教学中，写作技能的培养越来越受到人们的关注。在过去的二、三十年中，国外对外语写作教学法的研究和实践逐步走向成熟，并形成了一系列卓有成效的写作教学法，其中“过程写作法”已经在许多ESL国家流行应用，并且取得了良好效果。该教学法目的在于让学生了解：写作是一个循环往复的过程而不是一个线性过程，涉及写前、起草、检查、修改、校对等阶段。
本文旨在研究“过程写作法”在中国高中英语教学实践中的有效性和可行性，探究合适的高中英语过程写作教学方法。本研究试图回答下列问题：
1）“过程写作法”能否改变学生对写作的态度和看法？
2）“过程写作法”能否改善学生的写作语言能力和写作内容？
本研究对杭州市一所重点高中的两个平行班的102名学生进行实验研究。实验为期4个月，实验班学生采用“过程写作法”；先后采用四种研究工具：问卷调查, 作文成绩，采访，和期末成绩。
实验结束后，应用社会科学统计包（11.5版本）对研究数据进行分析。结果表明，“过程写作法”的运用是成功的：实验后，学生不但改变了对写作的态度和看法，而且增强了写作的自信心，提高了写作能力。
当然，任何一种教学法都不能解决所有的问题，“过程写作法”也不例外。本实验的步骤和操作还有待改善，相信改善后的教学方法可以更有效地提高学生的写作能力。
通过实验研究，本文揭示了从“结果写作法”到“过程写作法”的转变是可行并且有效的。希望本研究能够帮助高中英语教师更好地了解“过程写作法”，并能不断尝试将“过程写作法”运用于英语写作课堂。
关键词：过程写作法 英语写作 学生的写作态度 多稿写作 同伴修改
Abstract ：English writing is, at present, the most challenging course for most students and the teaching of writing is relatively ineffective. On one hand, most students are confronted with the frustration of not knowing what to write and how to write due to their limited language competence and anxiety about writing. On the other hand, teachers also complain of the heavy workload and ineffectiveness of correcting students’ compositions.
In EFL teaching, the training of writing skills has always been one of the main concerns of all English teachers. In the past few decades, the teaching of English writing has seen dramatic changes. A great number of researchers and practitioners have gradually enriched theories and approaches to the teaching of writing, among which the process approach has become prevalent in many foreign countries and proved to be effective in improving EFL students’ writing abilities. This approach enables the students to be aware of the process of writing. It suggests writing process is recursive and not linear. Writing involves a whole range of activities such as pre-writing, multiple drafting, reviewing, and revising and editing.
The major concern of the present thesis is to apply the process approach to teaching writing in a Chinese senior high school and to see if it is suitable for the students. The study attempts to answer the following questions:
1) Is the process approach effective in changing the students’ attitudes and beliefs towards writing?
2) Can students’ writing competence, both in content and in language, be enhanced through the process approach?
To answer these questions, an experiment was carried out in two parallel classes, involving 102 students of senior two from a high school in Hangzhou. During the four months’ of the experiment, the process approach was practised in the experiment class, using such instruments as questionnaires, interviews, and scores of compositions.
All the data were collected and analyzed using SPSS 11.5. The results showed that the experiment was successful in that the students not only changed their attitudes towards and beliefs in English writing, but also gained confidence.
As no approach can solve all problems, the process approach has also its limitations, and there is much space for further improvement.
To sum up, this study suggests that the shift from the product approach to the process approach is meaningful and practical. It is hoped that this thesis will help our colleagues to have a better understanding of the writing pedagogy, and more and more of them will join in trying this approach in the classroom.
Key Words: the process approach, English writing, student attitude, multiple drafts, peer review
Chapter One Introduction
This introductory chapter first goes over the demands for writing ability and the problems and challenges of English writing in current China. It then introduces the main approaches to English writing. Lastly, it presents the organization of this thesis.
1.1 Demands for Writing Ability
English as a foreign language has become a sure access to information of all kinds and an indispensable means of international communication. Using English means not only reading and listening to English, but also giving information in English. Speaking and writing are thus very important on various occasions.
In line with the high demands for writing ability from society, the newly promulgated Ordinary Senior High School English Curriculum Criterion (hereafter New Criterion), formulated by the Ministry of Education in 2002, sets greater demands on the high schools. The New Criterion adopts a graded objective system. There are nine grades in all, and the objective of grade 7 is the one that senior high school students must achieve when they graduate. Objectives of grade 8 and 9 are designed for those students who are willing to improve their language competence further. The objective of grade 7 includes the following requirements: students can 1) make simple descriptions with the aid of written contents and charts; 2) compose practical writing of common styles, such as letters, notices, etc.; 3) describe persons or events and make common comments on them; 4) fill in forms for personal matters, e.g. an application form; 5) adapt the text for a short play in groups.
目录：Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………i
Abstract in English………………………………………………………………..ii
Abstract in Chinese……………………………………………………………..iv
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………vi
Chapter One Introduction……………………………………………………..….1
1.1 Demands for Writing Ability……………………………………………….…1
1.2 Problems and Challenges……………………………………….…………….2
1.3 Approaches to Writing Instructions…………………………………………3
1.3.1 Product Approach…..………………………………………………………3
1.3.2 Genre Approach……………………………………………………………4
1.3.3 Process Approach…………………………………………………………..4
1.4 Organization of the Thesis……………………………………………..…5
Chapter Two Literature Review….………………………………………..…..…6
2.1 History of the Process Approach………………………………………..………6
2.2 Theoretical Foundations: Different Models……………………………..………6
2.2.1 Flower and Hayes’ Cognitive Process Theory………………………..…….7
2.2.2 White and Arndt’s Diagram of Process Writing…………………………..8
2.2.3 Graves’ Model…………………………………………………………….8
2.3 Introduction to the Process Approach……………………………………….9
2.3.1 Stages in the Process Approach…………………………………………….9
2.3.2 A Changed Role for Teachers……………………………………………10
2.3.3 Advantages of the Process Approach……………………………………10
2.4 Application of the Process Approach in the English Writing Classroom…….12
2.4.1 Prewriting…………………………………..………………………………12
2.4.2 Drafting…………………………………………………………………….13
2.4.3 Revising and Editing.…………………………………………………….13
2.4.4 Assessment.………………………………………………………………14
2.4.5 Publishing and Sharing…………………………………………………….15
Chapter Three The Experiment….………………………………………………16
3.1 Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………….….16
3.2 Subjects…………………………………………………………………………..16
3.3 Instruments.……………….……………………………………………………17
3.3.1 Questionnaires……………………………………………………..…….17
3.3.2 Scores of Compositions……………………………………………………17
3.3.3 Interviews…………………………………………………………….……18
3.3.4 Final Exam Grades……………………………………………………….….18
3.4 Procedures.……………………………………………………………………..19
Chapter Four Data Reports and Discussion………………………..……………..22
4.1 Questionnaire Reports….………………………………………………………22
4.2 Data from Five Composition Scores………………………………………….….29
4.3 Student Comments about the Process Approach from Interviews……………….31
4.4 Data from Final Exam Grades……………………………………………….…..32
Chapter Five Findings and Conclusion….………………………………………..34
5.1 Findings.…………………………………………………………………………34
5.2 Implications and Suggestions…………………………………………………….35
5.3 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………….37
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………….38
5.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….39
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………40
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..45
Publications………………………………………………………………………….52
参考文献：Allwright, D. & K. Bailey, 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Badge, R. & G. White, 2000. A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. ELT Journal, Vol. 54/2:153-160.
Boughey, C. 1997. Learning to Write by Writing to Learn. ELT Journal, Vol. 51/2:126-134.
Chan, A. Y. W. 1999. Edit Your Own Writing. MET, Vol. 8/4:39-40.
Charles, M. 1990. Responding to Problems in Written English Using a Student Self-monitoring Technique. ELT Journal, Vol. 44/4:286-293.
Chenoweth, N. A. 1987. The Need to Teach Rewriting. ELT Journal, Vol. 41/1:25-29.
Chimombo, M. 1986. Evaluating Compositions with Large Classes. ELT Journal, Vol. 40/1:20-26.
Cooper, M. 1989. Why Are We Talking about Discourse Communities? Or, Foundationalism Rears Its Ugly Head One More. In M. Cooper (eds.) Writing as Social Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Cosh, J. 1999. Peer Observation: A reflective model. ELT Journal, Vol. 53/1:22-26.
Cresswell, A. 2000. Self-monitoring in Student Writing: Developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal, Vol. 54/3:235-244.
Elbow, P. 1981. Writing with Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. 1971. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Faigley, L. 1986. Competing Theories of Process: A critique and a proposal. Collegue English, Vol. 48/6:52-54.
Flower, L. 1994. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Flower，L. & G. Hayes, 1981. A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 32/4:365-387.
Fulcher, G. 1999. Assesment in English for Academic Purposes: Putting content validity in its place. Applied Liguistic, Vol. 20/2:221-236.
Grabe, W. & R. B. Kaplan, 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing. New York: Longman.
Graves, D.H. 1978. Balance the Basics: Let Them Write. New York: Ford Foundation.
Graves, D. 1983. Writing: Teachers and children at work. London and Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D. 1984. A Researcher Learns to Write. London and Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hedge, T. 1988. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirvela, A. 1999. Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers, TESOL Journal, Vol. 8/2:7-12.
Holliday, A. 1999. Small Cultures. Applied Liguistics, Vol. 20/2:237-264.
Horowitz, D., 1986. Process, not Product: Less than meet the eyes. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 20/1:141-144.
Hyland, F. 2000. ESL Writers and Feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 4/1:33-54.
Hyland, K. 1990. Providing Productive Feedback. ELT Journal, Vol. 44/4: 279-285.
Jacobs, G. 1986. Quickwriting: A technique for invention in writing. ELT Journal, Vol. 40/4:282-290.
Jacobs, G. 1988. Co-operative Goal Structure: a way to improve group activities, ELT Journal, Vol. 42/2:97-101.
Jarvis, J. & M. Robinson, 1997. Analysing Educational Discourse: An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils’ learning. Applied Liguistics. Vol. 18/2:212-228.
Johnson, A. K. 1999. Forty-two Teachers, One Student: Correcting written work. MET, Vol. 8/4:35-38.
Jones, F. R. 1998. Self-instruction and Success: A learner-profile study. Applied Liguistics, Vol. 19/3:378-406.
Keh, C. L. 1990. Feedback in the Writing Process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, Vol. 44/4: 294-304.
Leki, I. 1990. Coaching from the Margins: Issues in written response in B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Little, W. 1999. Defining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 20/1:71-94.
Mangelsdorf, K. 1992. Peer Reviews in the ESL Composition Classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, Vol. 46/3:274-284.
Mendonca, C. O. & K. E. Johnson, 1994. Peer Review Negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28/4:745-769.
Mittan, R. 1989. The Peer Review Process Harnessing Students’ Communicative Power in Johnson and Roen (eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL students. New York: Longman.
Muncie, J. 2000. Using Written Teacher Feedback in EFL Composition Classes. ELT Journal, Vol. 54/1:47-53.
Murray, D. M. 1980. Writing as Process: How writing finds its own meaning. In Donovan, T. R., and B. W. MecClelland (eds.), English Approaches in Teaching Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of teachers of English.
Norrish, J. 1983. Language Learners and Their Errors. London: Macmillan.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. United Kingdom: Prentice Hall International.
Perl, S. 1979. The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 13:317-333.
Perkins, K. 1983. On the Use of Composition Scoring Techniques, Objective Measures, and Objective Tests to Evaluate ESL Writing Ability. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 17/4:651-670.
Raimes, A. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. 1985. What Unskilled ESL Writers Do as They Write: A study of classroom composing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25/3: 407-430.
Raimes, A. 1991. Out of the Woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25/3: 407-430.
Rollinson, P. 2005. Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal, Vol. 59/1:23-30.
Shaughenssy, M. P. 1977. Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, P. & E. T. K. Liu, 1998. What Develops in the Development of Second-language Writing. Applied Liguistics, Vol. 19/2:225-254.
Silva, T. 1990. Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL IN B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York: Cambridge.
Spratt, M. & B. Leung, 2000. Peer Teaching and Peer Learning Revisited. ELT Journal, Vol. 54/3:218-226.
Teo, p. 1999. Process Writing: Peer Evaluation Revisited. Review of Educational Research and Advances for Classroom Teacher, Vol. 8/1:16-24.
Tribble, C. 1996. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Urzua, C. 1987. You Stopped Too Soon: Second language children composing and revising. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 21/2:279-301.
Villamil, O. & M. C. M. Guerrero, 1998. Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on L2 Writing. Applied Liguistics, Vol. 19/4:491-514.
Wang, X. 2004. Encouraging Self-monitoring in Writing by Chinese Students. ELT Journal, Vol. 58/3:238-246.
Watson, C. B. 1982. The Use and Abuse of Models in the ESL Writing Class. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 16/1:5-14.
Wenden, A. 1998. Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, Vol. 19/4:515-537.
White, R. & D. McGovern, 1984. Writing. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
White, R. & V. Arndt, 1991. Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.
Witbeck, M. C. 1976. Peer Correction Procedures for Intermediate and Advanced ESL Composition Lessons. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 10/3:321-327.
Witte, S. 1992. Context, Text, Intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, Vol. 9:237-308.
Zamel, V. 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 16/2:195-209.
Zamel, V. 1983. The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 17/2:165-187.
Zamel, V. 1985. Reaponding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19/1:79-98.
李森，改进英语写作教学的重要举措：过程教学法，外语界，2000（1）：19-23.
刘辰诞，教学篇章语言学，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.
吴锦，张在新，英语写作教学法新探[J]，外语教学与研究，2000（3）：213-240.
徐欣，纠正作文错误——以学生为中心[J]， 国外外语教学，2000（2）：48-51.
于飞，张慧芬，写作教学中的“成果教学法”、“过程教学法”和“内容教学法”浅析[J]，外语界，1996（3）：38-40.
张在新等，我国英语写作教学中的主要问题[J]，外语教学与研究，1995（4）：43-50.
钟启泉等，外语课程与教学论[M]，杭州：浙江教育出版社，2003.
作者点评：While the use of the process approach can be demanding and frustrating at first, it is possible to incorporate it successfully into English curriculum. Through the experiment, we have sensed that students can do better if some proper approach is adopted. In fact, the students in the experiment class do change their attitudes and beliefs towards English writing and gain confidence. The students are more willing to complete writing assignments and have gradually improved their writing ability.
It is deeply felt that process writing is challenging yet enjoyable. Both the teacher and students benefit a lot from this approach and they will do better in the future process writing. All the activities such as modeling, prewriting, peer editing and publishing contribute to students’ mastery of writing skills. The changed role of the teacher releases us from the painful correcting and we become more tolerant of “minor” mistakes. At the same time, the students themselves are more active, become more aware of their own accuracy and develop the good habit of revising and drafting several times. It is believed that the process approach to English teaching is a practical and effective method and yet there is still a long way to go in tackling some problems traditionally experienced by EFL teachers and students.
