The Impact of Summary Writing with Structure Guidelines on EFL College Students’ Rhetorical Organization: Integrating Genre-Based and Process Approaches
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
Maryam Karimpour
1
(Department of English, College of Humanities, Bostan Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bostan Abad, Iran)
پروانه کارکیا
2
(Department of English, AL Zahra University, Tehran, Iran)
کلید واژه: summary writing, EFL college students, rhetorical organization, genre based approach, process approach,
چکیده مقاله :
This study aimed at investigating the impact of writing on Iranian EFL college students’ rhetorical organization. Thirty Iranian female undergraduate students majoring in English at Al-zahra University participated in the current study. The writing instructions included two stages, each lasting for four weeks. The participants were assigned to a control group and an experimental group according to an “S” model and received writing instructions based on genre and process approaches. The experimental group received writing instruction on text structure designed according to descriptive genre for the first four weeks, followed by the instruction on the process approach for the second four weeks. However, the control group received the process writing instruction only during the second stage. The research questions focused on whether summary writing with instructions on text structure improves students’ rhetorical organization or not. Also, the study sought to find out how students’ rhetorical organization improves when instructions on text structure are used as a supplementary tool to the process approach. The design of the study was quasi experimental. The findings revealed that summary writing with instructions on text structure helps students have better performances in rhetorical organization, concerning content, organization, language use, and syntactic complexity. Also, the obtained results indicated that genre and process approaches can be complementary, and summary writing with instructions on text structure can be used as a supplementary tool to the process approach.
هدف از انجام این تحقیق بررسی تاثیر خلاصه نویسی بر دانش بلاغی دانشجویان دوره کارشناسی میباشد. سی دانشجوی خانم در رشته ادبیات انگلیسی دانشگاه الزهرا در این بررسی شرکت نموده اند. آموزشهای نوشتاری شامل دو مرحله بوده است که هر یک به مدت چهار هفته به طول انجامید. دانشجویان بر اساس مدل "اس" به دو گروه آزمون و شاهد تقسیم گردیده وآموزشهایی مبنی بر گونه نوشتاری و رویکرد مبنی بر فرآیند دریافت کردند. گروه آزمون در طول مرحله اول خلاصه نویسی با آموزشهای ساختاری و در طول مرحله دوم آموزش رویکرد مبنی بر فرآیند دریافت کردند لکن گروه شاهد فقط در طول مرحله دوم آموزش مبنی بر فرآیند دریافت نمودند. سوالات تحقیق پس آزمون دو مورد بود که آیا خلاصه نویسی با آموزشهای ساختاری دانش بلاغی دانشجویان را بهبود میبخشد و اینکه چگونه دانش بلاغی دانشجویان وقتی آموزشهای ساختاری به عنوان ابزار جانبی رویکرد مبنی بر فرآیند استفاده میشوند افزایش می یابد. به منظور جمع آوری اطلاعات مورد نیاز جهت پاسخگویی به دو سوال تحقیقی ذکر شده ابزارهایی نظیر فرم ارزیابی برگرفته از طرح هیتون 1988و روش تجزیه تحلیل کمی متن برگرفته از مدل "اسکات"1996 بکار گرفته شده اند. تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات با استفاده از روش آماری " تی تست" نشان داد که خلاصه نویسی با آموزشهای ساختاری ، دانش بلاغی دانشجویان را در محتوا ،سازمان دهی، استفاده درست از زبان و پیچیدگی ساختاری افزایش میدهد.همچنین یافته های این بررسی بیانگر این مطلب بوده است که رویکرد مبنی بر فرآیند و گونه نوشتاری می توانند به عنوان روشهای مکمل هم مورد استفاده قرار گرفته و خلاصه نویسی با آموزشهای ساختاری می توانند به عنوان ابزار جانبی رویکرد مبنی بر فرآیند استفاده شوند.
Allal ,M., & Chanquoy, J.(2004). Cognitive and instructional processes. Klwer Academic Publishers.
Armbruster, H., & Anderson, C. (1987). Does text structure / summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22,331-346.
Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical review. Reading – Canada Lecture, 5(1), 10-18.
Berg, E. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students 'revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles. Longman.
Carson, J.E., Carrel, P.L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B. & Juechn, P.A.(1990). Reading – writing relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 254-266
Chung, S.L. (2000). Signals and reading comprehension-theory and practice. System, 28, 247-259
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions in Wenden and
J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, (pp.57-69). London: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A.D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers and researchers. New York: Newbury House.
Cope, B. & Katlantzis, M. (1993).The power of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing .Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
.Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In R. Beach & Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guliford Press.
Gardner ,H., & Johnson, R.(1997). Stages of writing process. Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/instrctn/in5lk11-1.htm.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2composing .Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141- 163.
Holmes, N. (2005). The Use of process oriented approach to facilitate the planning and production stages of writing for adult students of English as a foreign or second language. Retrieved February 2, 2006 from http://www. Developing teachers.com//articles_w1_ Nicola.html
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R.L. (1998).An evaluation of a genre- based approach to the teaching
EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 147-156.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R.L. (1999)."Raising Awareness of the generic structure and linguistic features of essay introductions .Language Awareness Journal, 8, 190-200.
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4), 279-85.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyon, S. (2001). Genre and pedagogy: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kim, Y. & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean University writing class: Balancing the process and genre approach. Asian EFL Journal, 7, 1-15.
Kubota, R. & Lehner, T.(2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7-27.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second
language writing: research insights for the classroom (pp.57-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leon, J. A. & Carretero, M. (1995). Intervention in comprehension and memory strategies: Knowledge and use of text. Learning and Instruction, 5, 203-220.
Lian, M. (2004). A Genre-based approach in teaching the unseen questions in literature paper. Teaching of English Language and Literature (TELL), 18, 1-20.
Newkirk, T. (1990). To compose: Teaching writing in the high school and college. Portsmouth, HH: Heinemann.
Nunan, D., & Carter, R. (2001).Teaching of English to speaker of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Approaches to teaching second language writing. RetrievedFebruary3,2006fromhttp://www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference/Proceeding/pdf/paltridge.pdf.
Paulus, T. M. (1990). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
Raimes, A. (1991). "Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing .TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-430.
Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (2002).Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Pearson Education Limited.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate Analysis. .Journal of Educational Psychology, 76.466-477.
Staneley, J. (2002)." Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Stotsky, S. (1983)." Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts, 60,627-642.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46,327-369.
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-
cognitive, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75
Yang, L., Shi, L. (2003)."Exploring six MBA students' summary writing by introspection. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 162-192.
