教师行动研究的方法【外语写作教学中的行动研究】

　　摘要:该研究旨在为外语写作研究引入新的研究方法,改进研究方式,为写作教学注入新的生机与活力,使写作教学最大限度地发挥其应有功能。本文利用行动研究的理论,结合外语写作过程的特点,对写作教学实践进行探讨。根据调查问卷得到的数据,在写作教学过程中采取了针对性的措施:1)强化学生的写作策略;2)强化学生的语篇意识;3)为真正的读者写作;4)改进作文的批改模式。针对措施在写作教学中实施一学期后,重新调查,整理分析两份问卷的不同数据,比较行动研究的结果。在此基础上,制定新的针对措施,解决写作教学中依然存在的问题。
　　关键词:行动研究;英语写作;写作过程;写作教学
　　
　　Abatract: This study aims to introduce new research approach to maximize the function of writing, motivate the writing course and further the previous studies. It discussed some problems of writing teaching by combining the theory of action research and the characteristics of writing process. With the data from first investigation, some contermeasures were taken in the writing process. After a term’s implementation of countermeasures, reinvestigation was done. The data of the two investigations were analyzed and compared in order to verify the effect of this action research in the writing process. On this basis, new countermeasures will be made to resolve the problems existing in writing teaching.
　　Key Words: action research; English writing; writing process; writing teaching
　　
　　The development of writing skills is a complex and dynamic cognitive process. It requires more than the mastery of vocabulary and linguistic structures. Though there are increasing researches being done on the teaching and learning of FL (foreign language) writing, many researches center on the product of English writing(Wang Wenyu and Wang Lifei, 2004). It is of great significance to analyze the present situation and to find solution to the problems in the writing process.
　　Recently, the teaching of writing has shifted from a concentration on the written product to an emphasis on the process of writing. The process of writing and revising can not only teach us, apart from accuracy, completeness of meaning, more about reference and consideration from the reader’s point of view, but also guarantee us about unity and logic of what we write. Teachers begin to lay much stress on employing different writing strategies to train their students. Innovative activities are needed to maximize the efficiency of the teaching methods in the process of writing and keep students interested in this course, whereas new research approaches should be applied to improve the teaching of writing.
　　This paper attempts a new approach to FL writing ― action research, which allows teachers to be researchers doing small-scaled research within their own classroom. Besides studying some problems in FL writing on the basis of observation and analysis, this paper will explore the extent to which teachers’ access to theoretical knowledge and involvement in research can provide them with a much-needed opportunity for creativity and growth, reinvigorating them as learners.
　　
　　I. Procedures of this research
　　
　　Action research consists of planned, continuous, and systematic procedures for reflecting on professional practice and for trying out alternative practices to improve outcomes of students’ writing. Action research unfolds through a spiral of cycles: reflecting, planning, acting, data collecting, analyzing, replanning, acting…. According to McNiff (1988), action research is a recycling process which can be put into the following five steps: 1) aware of the problems existing in teaching through teaching practice; 2) putting forward countermeasures; 3) effectuating teaching plan to resolve problems; 4) evaluating the results of the teaching action; 5) ascertaining teaching problems newly on the basis of analysis and evaluation to proceed research in the next step.
　　According to the theory of action reseach, combining the characteristics with the writing process, we made the first questionnaire to get an overall knowledge of the students’ problems. After analyzing the them, we implemented some countermeasures for one year. At the end of the year, students’ were asked to take the sencond questionanaire, to which, based on the first one, some items were added. The following figure was actually the procedures of this research made according to Schmuck( 2002)and Tomal (2003) (See the following figure).
　　
　　
　　II. Subjects
　　
　　Subjects of the study are selected regularly from non-English majors of Grade 2005 in our College, whose school number ends with ‘0’ and ‘5’. The subjects are selected to take the self-established questionnaire.
　　
　　III. Data analysis
　　
　　Through data analysis, we could see clearly that students’ productive skills were their weak points. Altogether 136 out of 212 subjects chose reading as their strongest skill, which had a high percentage of 64%. Listening and speaking were considered to be their weakest skills, while writing was inferior to these two because students usually had enough time to think and correct their thought. The choice of answer “A. spending less time” to question four was as high as 53%, which was totally unexpected, since they had spent more than seven years in English studying. However, after second thought, the answer was reasonable considering the learning environment. Question 5 and 6 were about the pre-writing stage. There were 32% students who seldom think about the style, content and structure of the composition before writing, 10% students even didn’t know how to think about it. About making outline or planning, 35% students admitted that they seldom did it; the number of those who never made outline reached 28%. From the statistics, we got a clear knowledge about the students’ mindlessness in their writing and learning. That explained why sometimes we could not make any sense of their writing. (See Table 1)
　　
　　Questions 7 to 12 were about the writing stage. 54% students thought in Chinese and then translated their thoughts into English; while 31% students sometimes thought in English sometimes in Chinese. Questions 8 and 9 showed the influence of Chinese thought pattern on students’ writing. All these questions indicated that students were, to great degree, affected by Chinese thought pattern either positively or negatively. It indicated that they seldom used writing strategies. Their limited vocabulary prevented them from thinking in English. (See Table 2)
　　
　　Questions in this table were about the post writing stage. 33% students admitted that they seldom read what they had written down, 30% students never read their own writing. It seemed that their writing was only to finish the teacher’s assignment, which revealed that some students’ attitudes towards writing were not serious. Questions 16 to 18 dealt with the use of some writing strategies, they served the same purpose as question 5 and 6. The choices students made centered on B and C, which indicated that they seldom used writing strategies. For one thing, students themselves didn’t pay much attention to their own writing; for another, the percentage of students who mostly desired to read the errors pointed out or corrected by the teacher was as high as 52%, which impressed us that students were studying rather passively. (See Table 3)
　　
　　Questions 21 to 30 had much to do with students’ perceptions about some aspects of writing. Most students didn’t like the other students to correct their writing, and hoped that the teacher did the job instead. One point we’d like to mention was that the most effective marking model the students chose in the questionnaire was that the teacher and students mark together through multimedia. This could be attributive to the utilization of multimedia in our college. Some teachers changed the marking model by applying the advanced teaching facilities to have a face to face checking with the whole class. 40% students approved of this marking model on the grounds that they could get immediate feedback. Another thing deserved our attention was that most students claimed that their vocabulary was inadequate for their writing, which was also demonstrated in question 11, 24 and 29.
　　
　　IV. Countermeasures
　　
　　4.1 Strengthening students’ use of writing strategies
　　In the process approach students do not write on a given topic individually and hand in the “product” for the teacher to correct. Instead, they are given time to do prewriting and planning activities such as discussion, debate, reading, brainstorming and list making, in which they work together to plan how to begin and how to organize a writing task. They generate ideas, select words and construct sentences for the task, write a first draft and show that to the other students or teacher for feedback on the content, then revise it to produce a second draft. The process approach provides the students with a chance to think, to try out new ideas, and to help them learn from each other. The prewriting and writing activities help the students learn new ways and develop their awareness of learning to write.
　　The activity of brainstorming proves to be beneficial to students at the pre-writing stage. First of all, since the aim of the activity is to create ideas, students, by writing down one or more pages of ideas without much thinking, will produce a great number of ideas that could be included in their draft. When students do this, they simply focus on the essay topic and record, “in a stream�of�consciousness fashion, everything that is associated with that topic”(Clausen, 1987:7). Second, it is more stimulating than pondering over the topic alone.
　　As a warming-up activity, brainstorming takes the form of oral discussion which fits the purpose of productive pre-writing activities. It makes the writing class more lively and enjoyable, thus helping to relieve the students’ anxieties when they confront a new writing assignment. Cooperation among students also makes writing class more supportive, thus “writing really is cooperative” (Hamp-Lyons and Heasley, 1987:2). Third, by brainstorming activity students will get to know that writing is a writer-reader relationship. Each writer has to keep his readers in mind in the process of writing. This activity provides student writers with readers. Students’ drafts will help increase their reader awareness in their writing process when they get together to discuss them. Fourth, students become more active through the influence of group discussion. Finally, this activity compensates for the lack of writing classes and combines writing not only with reading but also with oral practice.
　　4.2 Strengthening students’ awareness of English discourse
　　English and Chinese discourse differ in nature, reasoning and organization, and the mode of expression. Knowledge of the differences will help students find an effective way of approaching the writing task. Chinese students should be conscious of all the differences and appropriately adjust to the discourse patterns of English. We plan to take reading as a source of writing to help students raise their awareness of learning to write. Using reading for teaching writing has two benefits: 1) to increase the efficiency of the teaching of reading; 2) to compensate for the limited available time for teaching writing.
　　Comparison and contrast of the structure and organization of English and Chinese articles are needed to help students to know the different features of English and Chinese discourse. When students are aware of the style, structure and organization of the reading, more should be given to them: an outline to complete, a paragraph to imitate, a model to follow, or a passage to continue. Paragraph developing skills, such as, cause-effect, problem-solving, general-specific, comparison and contrast etc. should be stressed for the students to imitate in their later writing.
　　4.3 Writing for the real audience
　　Writing itself has a certain communicative orientation. All ideal writing assignments should be real communication (Ding,1998: 24). When students write for the teacher, they are only trying to finish a piece of homework, which is sometimes regarded as a burden. However, if students have a real audience rather than the teacher in mind, writing can be meaningful and even enjoyable. Through sharing information with each other, writing becomes a social act, and real communication is going on, while getting immediate feedback from the peers also gives a reason to write.
　　For most students, writing is “an irksome activity and an ordeal to be avoided whenever possible”(Widdowson, 1983: 34). If they can write for a real audience, and allow to write anything they have an interest in, writing will bear much more meaning than completing homework. Writing, thus, is relatively easy if students can choose what they want to write. In such situation, it also acquaints a teacher with the real life of students as well as promotes developing students’ creative ability and stimulating their potential motivation for writing.
　　It turned out that students had great enthusiasm for this project. They looked forward to receiving the letter from a real audience whom they did not know personally but were eager to know through letters. Some even got excited in the freshness of receiving a letter in English from an unknown person. They read their pen pals’ responses and shared with their desk-mates the interesting things they read. Consequently, writing became a social interaction, not merely a “solitary activity”(Brown, 1994). Motivated by the excitement of receiving quick replies from a real audience, they wrote long passages, which gradually built up their writing confidence.
　　Writing for a real audience increased students’ awareness of readers, and at the same time changed the headache writing into a purposeful and meaningful activity, which also improved the communication among students.
　　4.4 Improving the correction of compositions
　　It has been regarded as perfectly justified for the teacher to correct errors in students’ compositions. With this belief in mind, teachers have taken great pains in correcting students’ compositions so that the exercise book is often covered with corrections in red ink. Students may regard the task of correcting errors as nothing to do with them and slowly become less motivated and completely dependent on the teacher to correct their errors. Consequently, contrary to the teachers’ expectations to improve students’ composition, the same errors appear time and again in the students’ work. Students may feel disheartened on seeing their marked work, thinking that teachers have gone beyond their duties by making too many corrections. Some students even never care to know what corrections have been made when they get their exercise books back. New marking models must be introduced into writing course for the students to benefit from.
　　Research has shown that learners have certain abilities to correct their own errors through small group discussion based on various problem-solving tasks and found that students were capable of correcting each other successfully (White, 1977; Bruton and Samuda, 1980). Much research has been done on the different aspects of peer group revision (Carson and Nelson, 1998), which is an effective activity in helping students improving their writing. Group revision activities can be described as follows(Li Lee and Tian Jinping, 2000:19):
　　Reading (writer)―Critical listening (readers)― Speaking and listening (readers)― Listening, speaking, note-taking (writer) ―Re-writing (writer).
　　It’s quite natural that one is apt to see others’ errors and ready to point them out, while he himself often makes the same mistakes. When a student points out others’ mistakes, later he will become more careful with the same mistake as he writes, which helps him reduce his own errors. Therefore, students’ compositions should be corrected in class as soon as possible after they have completed them, and by the students in small groups of threes and fours, with the teacher directing the process from group to group, ready to give them whatever help. Once errors are pointed out by the classmates or the teacher, they will feel they have learned something new. The process of discussion is a process of making up for each other’s deficiencies and learning from each other, and meeting each other’s wants.
　　During the group revisions, the readers are encouraged to express their opinions directly and specifically, not fearing that they will offend the writer since the purpose of peer feedback is to co-operate rather than to criticize. The writers are encouraged to listen carefully and offer some explanation where necessary, to participate in the interaction actively, and later to revise their drafts based on their understanding of the peer feedback. In general, an active reader brings to the work a critical eye, and acts as a provider of the suggestions, and simplifier of tasks. An active writer, on the other hand, is a reviser aware of audience needs and receptive to feedback, a composer and final decision-maker. In this process, every student acts actively instead of writing passively.
　　
　　V. Reinvestigation
　　
　　After we implemented the countermeasures in this study, another investigation was made to examine their function. The second questionnaire was divided into several categories according to the different function of each item.
　　All the mean scores were above 3, which showed students could accept writing training. What’s more, their confidence grew at the end of the term. That meant students realized the significance of writing training, and held a positive attitude towards writing. (See Table 4)
　　
　　MSB = mean score of the item before the research. MSA= mean score of the item after the research.+ = above 0.05 i.e. with positive change;+ -= within 0.05, i.e. very close; -= below 0.05 i.e. without positive change
　　We explained writing strategies to students at the beginning of the term. But at first, students didn’t show much interest in brainstorming. Mean scores of items 4 to 6 were above 3 at the beginning of the term, which showed students’ positive attitude towards brainstorming, but actually, interview with the students showed that they just feel this was a new way in FL writing. However, mean scores at the end of the research were quite higher than those of the beginning. It indicated that brainstorming was beneficial to students’ writing, especially helpful in providing new words and expressions for them. As for the 7th item, the mean score dropped a little, because although we emphasized the importance of making an outline instead of making a draft, some students had poor response to the requirement. What’s more, although students had enough vocabulary for a writing topic, some of them lacked the ability to organize sentences of their own. Therefore, it is pressing to teach students the knowledge of English discourse and skills of paragraph organization. (See Table 5)
　　
　　Except the 12th item, mean scores in the other three items were all above 3, which proved that students accepted the integration of reading with writing, since very limited time was allocated to writing. Some inquiries into the students showed that though they could have more ready-made vocabulary to express their idea, they could not remember all the words and expressions, and they didn’t think these phrases were already their own and their writing competence improved within a short term. They needed more ways to improve their English writing. (See Table 6)
　　
　　All the three items had mean scores above 3, which indicated that students were quite interested in letter exchange project. Most students were ready to communicate with strangers and they thought their ability of communicating improved a lot. Although mean score in item 14 dropped a little, it still showed students’ active attitude towards exchanging English letters. (See Table 7)
　　 　　EEL means exchanging English letter.
　　Mean scores concerning peer group revision were all above three, and mean score of item 16 was especially high. It was usually easy for students to find others’ mistakes, but difficult to find mistakes in their own writing. (See Table 8)
　　
　　PGR means peer group revision.
　　Three items had mean scores below 3, which suggested that students liked the teacher to correct all their compositions, but they didn’t like other students to check their compositions; they liked the teacher to affirm their good points in their writing, but at the meantime, they hoped the teacher could point out their mistakes; in addition, students thought the detailed correction was helpful to them (See Table 9).
　　
　　SGC refers to students’ good composition. SPC refers to students’ poor composition.
　　In order to test the effectiveness of implementing comprehensive action research in writing process, 5 items were added at the end of the research. All the added items had mean scores above 3, which proved that after a term of action research in writing, they had quite affirmative attitude towards writing, and they felt it was not that difficult to write in English. (See Table 10)
　　
　　
　　VI. Conclusion
　　
　　Action research theory provides teachers with a theoretical base to do small-scaled research within their own reach. It enables them to become researchers instead of being disinterested on-lookers, to make a need assessment, a detailed teaching plan and to show continuous concern about every step of the research and every stage of students’ writing. Action research in the writing process acquaints teachers with much more information about writing strategies, their own teaching and students’ learning. Teachers’ and their collaborators’ access to theoretical knowledge and involvement in research can provide them with a much-needed opportunity for creativity and growth, reinvigorating them as learners.
　　
　　References
　　1. Brown, H. D. 1994. “Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy”[M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
　　2. Bruton, A. & Samuda, V. 1980. “Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work”[J]. REIC Journal, 11 (2): 54-63
　　3. Carson, J. & Nelson, G. 1996. “Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction”[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, (5) 1-19
　　4. Clausen, M. D. 1987. Concise Process Handbook[M]. U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill.