College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9 Basic English Writing: A Classroom Experiment In Student-Oriented Design And Textbook Fan-yu In, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, R.O.C.

ABSTRACT

Basic English Writing (BEW) courses have been part of English learning curricula in many universities. Some research has been conducted to investigate various class designs for English language courses. However, class designs for English writing are not yet abundantly developed to provide more experimental results. The purpose of this study was to experiment with a class design in accordance with a student-orient textbook. It explored the learning effect of beginning writers who participated in an experiment of the student-oriented class design and textbook. Participants included native Chinese seniors, taking Basic English Writing (BEW) classes. They were intermediate level students in terms of English proficiency. The study was conducted with two groups and it lasted 18 weeks. The two groups were evaluated by a final writing test. The final writing test was analyzed with four variables included in text analysis and an untried variable included in grammar. The results indicated that the class design helped the participants learn basic writing skills and apply them more frequently in their compositions at the end of the experiment. This design and textbook may be an easier and more systematic teaching strategy for BEW teachers.

Keywords: English writing, student-oriented, class design, textbook, t-test

INTRODUCTION

ver the past three decades, some researchers have carried out research on either class designs or course materials. In terms of the former, two studies have found some problems in course materials or O textbooks (Cullen, 2007; Porreca, 1984). As for the latter, three researchers have provided more insights concerning class designs (Johnson, 1983; Richards, 1983; Pica, 1984). The above studies have shown an interest in improving class designs and course materials.

English writing has been a distressing issue to Chinese undergraduate students. On the one hand, they perceive the necessity of writing in good English. On the other hand, they have a fear of how to start to write. During the preceding decades, the emphasis of research on writing has centered on either products or processes. The evaluation of literal products is related to text analysis, while processes are linked to writing skills. This study emphasizes these two aspects. In terms of the product—written texts—during the past two decades many researchers have identified variables in written texts. First, on vocabulary, seven studies found that L2 writers displayed more concern and difficulty with vocabulary (Arndt, 1987; Dennett, 1985; Krapels 1990; Moragne e Silva, 1991; Silva, 1993; Skibniewski, 1988; Yau, 1989). Second, on cross-culture in writing, Hinkel (1994) asserted that written texts characterize a combination of different stylistic, cultural, religious, ethical, and social notions, all of which comprise written discourse notions and frameworks. Moreover, Matalene (1985) found that her Chinese students’ writing in English closely followed the traditional Chinese writing style. To native Chinese senior students in this study, when they wrote in English, they tended to be stuck initially in the use of words and then in the cross-cultural problems exhibited by the stylistic, cultural, religious, ethical, and social difference between Chinese and English.

43 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

To overcome the difficulty with vocabulary, there are many ways for language acquisition. Besides some other methods, for example, word cards, word building, dictionary use strategies (Nation, 2000), and mass reading related to writing (Carson, 1990; Chu, 2002; Hedgcock, 1993), learning at classroom may be regarded as one of the traditional methods. Basic English Writing (BEW) classes are provided as elective courses at many universities. Most common basic writing skills may include paragraph components, prioritizing ideas by time, space, importance, or instruction. The common paragraph components are composed of a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence (Blanchard & Root, 2003; Fellag, 2002; In, 2006; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers 2001).

However, few studies have focused on both language acquisition and writing skill learning. The current study centered on a combination of language acquisition and writing skill learning. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether or not the class design based on the student-oriented textbook, Various Writing Skill, is effective. The BEW class was designed based on the student-oriented textbook titled Various English Writing (In, 2006). The textbook was written based on the six-semester observations of the needs of BEW students. There are twelve chapters in the textbook. The first chapter is designed to help conduct an opening activity on the first class of a semester. Chapters 2 to 7 follow the structure of an explanatory section, two sample articles, writing exercises for topic, supporting, and concluding sentences, and home assignments. Chapters 8 to 9 pave the way for learners to move towards advanced level. Chapters 10 to 12 help learners acquire English grammar.

Generally, the students in BEW classes are intermediate level writers with an average vocabulary size from 1000 to 2000 English words. The evaluation of the learning effect of the participants included the analysis of five variables. The five variables—phrasal verbs, wh-relative clauses, text connectives, compound sentences, and syntactic inversions—were employed in this study in order to analyze the participants’ compositions in an manner of the frequency of occurrences of each variable. The rationale for the analysis of each variable in the study is explicated hereinafter. First, the variable of phrasal verb is treated as the more reliable indicator in this study due to much research on them. A linguistic focus has been made to classify phrasal verbs in terms of their syntactic and semantic variations (Bolinger, 1971). In addition, some attention has been given to the distinction between phrasal verbs, prepositional verbs, phrasal prepositional verbs, and free combinations (Bibee, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999). The above research indicated the different approaches to classification system for phrasal verbs (Bibee, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Bolinger, 1971; Sawyer, 2000; Sheen, 2000). Garderner & Davies (2007) gathered a corpus of form-based and meaning-based phrasal verbs. This study centered on the phrasal verbs in language assessment (Read, 2000) and language training (Condon & Kelly, 2002; Darwin & Gray, 1999; Nesselhauf, 2003). Next, Biber, Conrad, and Reppen (2000) had investigated the structure of wh-relative clauses in text analysis. A wh-relative clause must start with a relative pronoun, for example, which or who, in order to replace and modify the noun precedes it. Wh-relative clauses were treated as another reliable indicator in the text analysis.

Third, Connor (1994) provided a detailed classification of text connectives. As per Connor (1994), “Metadiscoursal taxonomies include text connectives (e.g., first, next, however), illocution markers (e.g., to sum up, to give an example), hedges (e.g., might, perhaps), and emphatics (e.g., clearly, obviously)—which skillful writers use effectively” (p. 683). Text connectives can be seen as part of transitional devices and hence are given different names, for example, connective words (Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001), and signal words (Blanchard & Root, 2003; Fellag, 2002; In, 2006; Weissberg & Buker, 2007). In the study, they were accordingly regarded as one more reliable indicator for text analysis, especially indicating a higher level of coherence.

Fourth, Watkins, Dillingham, and Hiers (2001) defined a compound sentence as it has two or more independent clause but no dependent clause. Fellag (2002) provided some examples of compound sentences by using a coordinating conjunction, such as and, but, so, or, yet. Some research has identified compound sentences as part of T-units (independent clauses and dependent clauses) that indicates the complexity of a sentence. Based on the definition of Connor and Farmer (1990), T-units can be used to distinguish compound sentences from simple sentences. While Harlig (1992) called for a review of T-unit analysis, Hallen and Shakespear (2002) utilized it to measure the syntactic complexity in the Emily Dickinson’s poems. The use of compound sentences in English writing may signal a higher proficiency. For this consideration, compound sentences were included in text analysis

44 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9 in an attempt of identifying the level of syntactic complexity.

In addition, the last variable—syntactic inversion—may be seen as an innovative indicator because less research has been undertaken in relation to this variable. However, in English, syntactic inversion can be seen as a common occurrence in both poetry and formal writing. It hence indicates a higher level of English proficiency. Bollinger (1992) is quoted in Leyton’s book as arguing that the word-order (ie., left to right) in English tends to be the order of topicality, starting with the left-most constituent which is the primary topic. Besides, Givon (1992) in Leyton’s book proposed that each of the world’s languages has a code in a sentence that notifies the listener of the topic. And, Leyton (1992) concluded from the above two opinions on word order in English that the code in English is given by the word order. To summarize the above, these five variables can be used as the measurement of writing quality. The results of these five variables may provide a thorough picture of improvement in the participants’ compositions.

Purpose Of The Study And Research Questions

The specific purpose of this study was to examine the effects of using the student-oriented class design and textbook on intermediate level Chinese seniors. Two research questions were addressed by this study.

1. How well do the student-oriented class design and textbook help the participants improve their English compositions? 2. How well do the student-oriented class design and textbook help the participants increase the number of occurrences of phrasal verbs, wh-relative clauses, text connectives, compound sentences, and syntactic inversions in their compositions?

METHOD

This section introduces three kinds of information: participants, materials, and procedures. The subsection of participants provides a description of participants involved in the study. The subsection of materials gives information on the student-oriented class design and textbook. The subsection of procedures elaborates the evaluation and test instruments applied in the study.

Participants

This study was conducted as a two-group controlled experiment. It involved the use of a control Group and a treatment Group. Each group was comprised of 40 seniors. A total of 80 participants were chosen from four BEW classes. BEW classes at the university are offered to students ranging from freshmen to seniors, in particular to those non-English majors. As a result of a random occurrence, in this study there were only seniors in each group because a majority of seniors took BEW classes during the period of the study. The 80 participants were all non-English majors with an average intermediate English proficiency based on the placement test held upon entrance to the university.

The placement test categorizes the students into two levels: basic-intermediate and advanced levels. Basic-intermediate level students attend English 1 class, while advanced level students attend English 2 class when they are freshmen. The participants in this study took English 1 class when they were freshmen. They were non-English majors so they had not taken any English-related classes since the completion of English 1 class. Their vocabulary size was on average from 1000 to 2000 English words.

All participants of these two groups were selected on the basis of two criteria: seniors and no attendance at English-related classes after the English 1 class. The two criteria were used to choose similar proficiency level participants from the BEW students.

45 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

Materials

This study is intended to explore the learning effect of intermediate level writers using a student-oriented textbook titled Various Writing Skills. The textbook was designed for an eighteen-week learning process whereby learners acquired several particular writing skills or knowledge pertaining to English writing. To be specific, there are twelve chapters in the textbook. Chapter 1 introduces a typical writing process containing five steps—GOWRE (generate, organize, write, revise, and edit). Chapter 2 introduces the basic structure of a paragraph, which includes a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and a concluding sentence. Chapter 3 provides details about how to prioritize ideas by space order. Chapter 4 explicates how to prioritize ideas by time order. Chapter 5 demonstrates how to prioritize ideas by importance. Chapter 6 is concerned with writing in graphs and charts. Chapter 7 displays how to write by giving instructions. Chapter 8 helps students create an outline. Chapter 9 focuses on editing, correcting and proofreading. Chapter 10 provides definitions and examples of the parts of speech. Chapter 11 presents definitions and examples of the parts of sentence. At the end of the book, chapter 12 highlights transitions and provides learners with a list of common signal words in order to enhance textual coherence. The textbook was written based on the six-semester observations of BEW students’ needs.

In terms of the function of Various Writing Skills, the first chapter is designed to help conduct an opening activity in the first class of a semester. Chapters 2 to 7 follow the structure of an explanatory section, two sample articles, writing exercises for topic, supporting, and concluding sentences, and home assignments. Writing exercises are on a basis of team discussion, while home assignments are offered for individual practice. Some writing exercises are intentionally designed as a pair-assignment with two conflicting titles (e.g., Disadvantages of Internet / Advantages of Internet). Chapters 8 to 9 pave the way for learners to move towards advanced levels. Chapters 10 to 12 help learners acquire basic rules of English grammar. In the study, the class design entirely followed the textbook.

Procedures

The class designs for each group are different. The 40 control participants were given an old mode of class using a book intended for teaching English writing. The 40 treatment participants were given a reformed class using Various Writing Skills. The period of the current study lasted 18 weeks.

The evaluation in this study included two sections: a pretest and a posttest. The pretest is a pre-semester questionnaire (Cohen, 1993; Wallace, 1998) employed to assess the proficiency level of two groups. The posttest is a final writing exam assessed by text analysis (Connor, 1994).

The pretest was conducted in the first class. The pre-semester questionnaire contains background questions as appendix A. Background questions were designed to have a general understanding of the proficiency level of participants. The final writing exam was conducted in the last class in the 18th week. It was followed by an analysis of the 80 participants’ compositions. The 80 participants had taken BEW class for 17 weeks. Both groups were tested by the same examiner, who was the teacher herself.

The text analysis (Connor, 1994) was conducted to obtain the number of occurrences of five variables—phrasal verbs (Bibee, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Bolinger, 1971; Sawyer, 2000; Sheen, 2000), wh-relative clauses (Biber, Conrad, and Reppen, 2000), text connectives (Blanchard & Root, 2003; In, 2006; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001), compound sentences (Fellag, 2002; Biber, Conrad & Reppen, 2000; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001), and syntactic inversions (Leyton, 1992). Each of these variables had its own significance of evaluating the quality of English writing. The number of occurrences of five variables was calculated by an independent two-sample t-test in SPSS. The t-test results show the answers to the two research questions about the comparison between two groups.

46 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results in the current study included two subsections: raw results of final writing test and t-test results of final writing test. Raw results of final writing test display the number of occurrences of 5 variables in each group. T-test results of final writing test shows if a significant difference in each variable.

Raw Results Of Final Writing Test

The raw results of the posttest are presented in Table 1. In this study, a corpus of 80 compositions was analyzed. As an evaluative tool for the posttest, the text analysis was done to obtain the number of occurrences of five variables—phrasal verbs (Bibee, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Bolinger, 1971; Sawyer, 2000; Sheen, 2000), wh-relative clauses (Biber, Conrad, and Reppen, 2000), text connectives (Blanchard & Root, 2003; In, 2006; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001), compound sentences (Fellag, 2002; Biber, Conrad & Reppen, 2000; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001), and syntactic inversions (Leyton, 1992).

Phrasal verbs occurred more in the compositions of control group. In contrast, 12 occurrences were found in the compositions of treatment group. This result indicates that control group tends to use more phrasal verbs without the aid of Various Writing Skills. The importance of occurrences in students’ compositions can be elaborated from two angles.

A phrasal verb consists of a verb and a preposition. On the one hand, in terms of multiword structures, four studies found the importance of multiword learning in developing a learner’s innate fluency (Gardner & Davies, 2007, Moon, 1997; Schmitt, 2004; Wray, 2000, 2002). Moreover, Gardner and Davies (2007) asserted that phrasal verbs are important to English because they enrich the language. Besides, Ferris (1994) noted that “Connor (1990) found that the use of a factor composed of passives, nominalizations, conjunctions, and prepositions was positively correlated with compositions’ holistic scores” (p. 147). Thus the use of prepositions in BEW texts may indicate a higher level of English proficiency.

On the other hand, Swales and Christine (2003) assumed that “Often in lectures and other instances of everyday spoken English, the verb + preposition is used; however, for written academic style, the preferred choice is a single verb wherever possible” (p. 15). Moreover, Weissberg and Buker (2007) provided some examples of research report writing with single verbs rather than the phrasal verbs in their Writing Up Research. To sum up, when a learner intends to move to the advanced level, he may need to avoid using phrasal verbs in academic writing.

Wh-relative clauses may be the most interesting in the results of the Posttest because it demonstrates the relation between Saussurean signifier and signified. Though a small amount of occurrences of wh-relative clauses were found in the compositions of treatment group, the results were higher than none of wh-relative clauses found in those of control group. A wh-relative clause starts with a relative pronoun (e.g., which or who) that replaces the noun precedes it. As exemplified by Saussurean signifier and signified in the model of relative pronoun and its antecedent noun, the relative pronoun is equivalent to the signifier, whereas the antecedent noun is the signified. When a intermediate-level writer is unable to locate the antecedent noun to which the relative pronoun refers in a complete sentence with a wh-relative clause, the link between Saussurean signifier and signified is obviously missing. This missing link demonstrates the negative phenomenon in Saussurean structure. Besides, such a missing linkage between signifier and signified exists in “an anaphoric relation between a pronoun and its antecedent” in Reinhart’s theory (Hintikka & Sandu, 1991, p. 143). Though the outcome is not beyond satisfaction, Various Writing Skills may be seen to be an access to further improvements.

Text connectives (Connor, 1994; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers 2001), or signal words (Blanchard & Root, 2003; Fellag, 2002; In, 2006; Weissberg & Buker, 2007), occurred 60 times in the compositions of the control group in comparison to the 150 occurrences in those of treatment group. In terms of this variable, the gap between control group and treatment group seems to be widened presumably by the class design based on Various Writing Skills.

47 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

There is a designated chapter titled “Signal Words” in this textbook. To consider the ratio of 60 to 150, the treatment group used text connectives more frequently in their compositions. Connor (1994) indicated the recent tendency of text analysis in which “metadiscoursal analyses have been applied to analyses of students’ writing” (p. 683). As per Connor (1994), “Metadiscoursal taxonomies include text connectives (e.g., first, next, however), illocution markers (e.g., to sum up, to give an example), hedges (e.g., might, perhaps), and emphatics (e.g., clearly, obviously)—which skillful writers use effectively” (p. 683). The textbook, Various Writing Skills, incorporates common text connectives, illocution markers, and emphatics into a particular chapter in order to provide the intermediate level students with an easy way of learning and identifying such words. Signal words (Blanchard & Root, 2003; Fellag, 2002; In, 2006; Weissberg & Buker, 2007) aim to transfer from one idea to the next; therefore, they help create a coherent paragraph or composition.

Compound sentences (Fellag, 2002; Watkins, Dillingham, & Hiers, 2001), including T-units (Connor & Farmer, 1990; Harlig, 1992), were found 4 occurrences in the compositions of control group as compared to 22 occurrences in those of treatment group. The results of the fifth variable seem to indicate that the treatment group tends to practice writing more complex sentences. The occurrences of compound sentences could be seen as an indicator of moving toward to the higher level of syntactic complexity. Various Writing Skills is likely to be of avail in this respect.

The last variable, as an add-on to the text analysis, syntactic inversions were not found in the compositions of control group. Conversely, there were 5 occurrences in the compositions of treatment group. A slight improvement is seen in this aspect. The occurrences of syntactic inversions also indicate a higher level of syntactic complexity.

Table 1 Frequency of occurrences of 5 variables in two groups (N = 80)

Test Variable Control Group Treatment Group (n= 40) (n= 40) Phrasal verb 15 12 Wh-relative clause 0 7 Text connective 60 150 Compound sentence 4 22 Syntactic inversion 0 5

T-Test Results Of Final Writing Test

The independent two-sample t-test in SPSS concerning the number of five variables generated by two groups yielded significant results, as demonstrated by Table 2. A significant difference is shown in four variables: wh-relative clause, text connective, compound sentence, and syntactic inversion. Table 2 displays the independent t-test results of phrasal verb, wh-relative clause, text connective, compound sentence, and syntactic inversion.

Based on Levene’s test for equality of variances, the result of phrasal verb, F=1.921, p=0.484>0.05, indicated no significant difference between the control group and treatment group. Second, the result of wh-relative clause, F=53.308, p=0.006<0.05, indicated a significant difference between the control group and treatment group. Treatment group outperformed control group. In terms of text connective, the F value of 1.466 (p=0<0.05) indicated a significant difference between the control group and treatment group. Treatment group outperformed control group. Next, the result of compound sentence, F=51.505, p=0.001<0.05, indicated a significant difference between the control group and treatment group. Treatment group outperformed control group. As to syntactic inversion, the F value of 53.308 (p=0.006<0.05) indicated a significant difference between the control group and treatment group. Treatment group outperformed control group.

48 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

T-test results seem to be similar to the raw results. The class design based on Various Writing Skills might aid intermediate-level participants in improving the occurrences of wh-relative clause, text connective, compound sentence, and syntactic inversion in their compositions. This improvement implies that a higher quality of the treatment participants’ compositions in term of coherence and syntactic complexity.

Table 2 Independent t-test results: mean scores of two groups (N = 80)

Phrasal verb Wh-relative Text connective Compound Syntactic clause sentence inversion Group n Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Control 40 0.37 0.49 0* 0 1.5* 1.15 0.1* 0.30 0* 0 Treatment 40 0.3 0.46 0.17* 0.38 3.75* 1.40 0.55* 0.71 0.17* 0.38 *p < 0.05 (two-tailed)

CONCLUSION

This study attempted to assess the experimental class design based on Various Writing Skills. In response to the first research question, the overall results display a positive influence on the participants’ English writing. Next, in reply to the second research question, the independent t-test results indicated that treatment group outperformed control group in four variables: wh-relative clause, text connective, compound sentence, and syntactic inversion.

The primary purpose of this study was to quantify the learning effect of participants in an experiment of the student-oriented class design and the textbook—Various Writing Skills. The above have shown that some aspects of the quantitative learning effect of treatment participants can be improved by the aid of Various Writing Skills. For example, chapter 12 enforced the treatment group’s capability to use signal words more frequently than the control group’s. Textual coherence in the compositions of the treatment group can then be improved.

Besides the improvements in four variables, the treatment group failed to outperform the control group in the number of occurrences of phrasal verbs. This result reveals the loophole in the class design. In addition, a pre-class writing test may be needed for a comparison between two groups. It can be seemed as a pretest in the future research.

The findings of this study may be treated as an added input of resources into the field of English language learners, teachers, curriculum designers, and textbook developers. More applications of the findings can make this study a perceptible contribution to English learning studies. In addition, conducting more experiments on Various Writing Skills will benefit both intermediate-level learners and advanced revisions made to this textbook in the near future.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Fan-yu In is a lecturer at Feng Chia University in Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C. She specializes in English teaching, vocabulary acquisition, and English literature. Her current research interests include text analysis and translation in English writing, and move to experimenting with more analytic approaches in text analysis.

49 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

REFERENCES

1. Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal, 41(4), 257-266. 2. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (2000). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. 4. Blanchard, K., & Root, C. (2003). Ready to write: A first composition text. New York: Longman. 5. Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 6. Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn P. A. (1990). Reading-writing relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 245-266. 7. Chu, H. C. (2002). Cultural representations of rhetorical conventions: the effects on reading recall. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 511-541. 8. Cohen, D. (1993). The Production of Speech Acts by EFL Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 33-56. 9. Condon, N., & Kelly, P. (2002). Does cognitive linguistics have anything to offer English language learners in their efforts to master phrasal verbs? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 133-134, 205-231. 10. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international student persuasive writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87. 11. Connor, U. (1994). Text analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 682-684. 12. Cullen, R. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 361-386. 13. Darwin, C. M., & Gray, L. S. (1999). Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 65-83. 14. Dennett, J. (1985). Writing technical English: A comparison of the process of native English and native Japanese speakers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(11), 3257A. 15. Fellag, R. (2002). Write ahead: skills for academic success. New York: Longman. 16. Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and Syntactic Features of ESL Writing by Students at Different Levels of L2 Proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420. 17. Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 339-359. 18. Hallen, C. L., & Shakespear, J. (2002). The T-unit as a measure of syntactic complexity in Emily Dickinson’s poems. Emily Dickinson Journal, 11(1), 91-103. 19. Harlig, K. B. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 390-395. 20. Hedgcock, J. (1993). Differing reading-writing relationships in l1 and l2 literacy development? TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 329-333. 21. Hinkel, E. (1994). Native and nonnative speakers’ pragmatic interpretations of English texts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 353-376. 22. Hintikka, J., & Sandu, G. (1991). On the methodology of linguistics: A case study. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 23. In, Fan-yu. (2006). Various writing skills. Taipei, Taiwan: Princeton. 24. Johnson, D. M. (1983). Natural language learning by design: A classroom experiment in social interaction and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 55-68. 25. Krapels, A. (1990). The interaction of first and second language composing: Process and rhetorics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(12), 4045A. 26. Leyton, Michael (1992). Symmetry, Causality, Mind. Cambridge: MIT P. 27. Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789-807. 28. Moon, R. (1987). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 40-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

50 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

29. Moragne e Silva, M. (1991). Cognitive, affective, social, and cultural aspects of composing in a first and second language: A case study of one adult writer. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(12), 4249A. 30. Nation, P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 6-10. 31. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223-242. 32. Pica, T. (1984). L1 transfer and L2 complexity as factors in syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 689-704. 33. Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 705-724. 34. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 35. Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 219-240. 36. Saussure, F. de. (1992). Course in general linguistics. In H. Adams (Ed.), Critical theory since Plato (pp. 718-726). Orlando, FL: University of Washington. 37. Sawyer, J. H. (2000). Comments on Clayton M. Darwin and Loretta S. Gray’s “Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification”: A reader reacts. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 151-159. 38. Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 39. Sheen, R. (2000). Comments on Clayton M. Darwin and Loretta S. Gray’s “Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification”: A reader reacts. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 151-159. 40. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-675. 41. Skibniewski, L. (1988). The writing processes of advanced foreign language learners in their native and foreign languages: Evidence from thinking aloud protocols. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 21(3), 177-186. 42. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2003). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor: University of Michigan Press. 43. Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 44. Watkins, F. C., Dillingham, W. B., & Hiers, J. (2001). Practical English handbook. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 45. Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (2007). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Taipei: Pearson Education. 46. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 47. Yau, M. (1989, March). A quantitative comparison of L1 and L2 writing processes. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual TESOL Convention, San Antonio, Texas.

51 College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal – September 2008 Volume 4, Number 9

APPENDIX A

Background Questionnaire

1. Field of study 2. You are a __ freshman, __ sophomore, __ junior, or __ senior. 3. You took __ English 1 class or __ English 2 class when you were senior. 4. Have you ever taken any English-related classes since the completion of English 1 class? __ yes or __ no 5. Writing in English in the past and currently: In the past: frequently sometimes rarely Currently: frequently sometimes rarely 6. Consulting an English dictionary before and after the attendance at BEW classes: Before: frequently sometimes rarely never After: frequently sometimes rarely never

APPENDIX B

Contents of Various Writing Skills

Chapter 1: Organizing Your Ideas Chapter 2: Writing Paragraphs Chapter 3: Prioritizing Ideas by Space Chapter 4: Prioritizing Ideas by Time Chapter 5: Prioritizing Ideas by Importance Chapter 6: Writing in Graphs and Charts Chapter 7: Writing by Giving Instructions Chapter 8: Writing Papers Chapter 9: Editing, Correcting, and Proofreading Chapter 10: The Parts of Speech Chapter 11: The Parts of Sentence Chapter 12: Signal Words

52