英语写作教学中结果法与过程法的结合

VIP免费

3.0 陈辉 2024-11-19 5 4 572.93KB 60 页 15积分

侵权投诉

ABSTRACT

For various reasons, as far as students (and teachers) are concerned, writing usually

appears an extremely daunting task. First of all, for a long time the main focus when a

writing task is assigned has traditionally been on the final product. The need to produce

a coherent, well-written text can be a great source of stress to the writer so that the

intervening stages in the process of creating this text are overlooked. In fact, few native

speaker writers, let alone students of English as Foreign Language (EFL), can be

expected to produce a highly structured text without first going through various

pre-writing and drafting stages. Yet this has not always been made clear to students of

English as a Foreign Language, who are still often assigned writing tasks with little

advice or support on the processes involved in completing them.

To our relief, in recent years, the focus of English writing instruction has shifted

somewhat from product approach to process approach. Still, we cannot go from one

extreme to the other. The role of product approach cannot be totally denied or ignored.

What we need to do is to incorporate these two approaches. The reasons can be seen

from the relationship between language and thinking. As is known to all, language and

thinking are interrelated with each other. One the one hand, language is the immediate

realization of thinking and it is the tool of thinking. Without language, thinking, which

is abstract and intangible, cannot be presented and realized. On the other hand, language

depends on thinking. To write clearly and in an in-depth way, people must think clearly,

logically and deeply. It is in vain to speak of improving language competence in

isolation of thinking. Thus how to strike a balance and how to consummate a marriage

of product approach and process approach is the key to the solution of the problem.

In this paper, the author first makes a brief review of writing instruction development.

Then she introduces the two kinds of writing instruction approaches: product approach

and process approach. In Chapter Two, the author makes a detailed comparison of these

two approaches based on data and information from research on current English writing

teaching. By comparison, the author finds that both approaches have their advantages

and disadvantages: the advantages of product approach lie in the fact that, according to

cognitive psychology theory, some aspects of this approach such as imitation and drills

and practice comply with learners’ acquisition procedure, and as is proved by real

classroom teaching, it can of certain help to improve students’ writing ability. The

disadvantages of the product approach are as follows: it overemphasizes sentence

patterns, grammar and punctuation while theme of the composition, structuring,

readability as well as style are ignored. As a result, students’ ability of creation is

inhibited and choked and their composition lacks originality and novelty. What they

produce is no more than an exquisite replica of others’ work. Process approach, in

contrast, can somewhat simplify the writing task by emphasizing writing process. The

disadvantages of the process approach are that it ignores students’ language proficiency

and style as a whole. Language barrier often crops up in the process of students’ writing,

which often hinders the process. Taking everything into account, the author draws the

conclusion that a sensible method teachers should adopt is to incorporate these two

approaches and let them serve English writing instruction jointly. In Chapter Three, the

author goes on to provide a framework to show how to incorporate these two

approaches in practice. Based on White and Arndt’s six-recursive framework the author

adds drills and practice, and model composition into the framework. According to the

integrated framework, teachers may guide students in every procedure of the recursive

process of writing including panning, generating ideas, focusing, structuring, drafting,

evaluating and revising; also model compositions and drills and practice should be

incorporated into the process. By providing great variety of concrete strategies for

English writing instruction, the author makes a detailed discussion on the practical

procedures involved in integrating the two important approaches. To sum up, the

incorporation of process approach and activities into EFL writing lessons, especially

when used in conjunction with product approach, can go a long way towards tackling

some of the problems traditionally experienced by teachers and students in this difficult

area.

Key Words: Process approach, Product approach, Incorporation

摘要

本文是对大学英语写作教学的研究。基于 White and Arndt 提出的过程教学

的理论和框架，古典修辞学中的一些理论以及 Nystrand 提出的一些有关理论，本

文回顾了大学英语写作教学的历史及流派，对比分析了过程教学法和结果教学法

各自的优缺点，得到以下结论：结果写作的观点和理论事实上没有抓住写作的本

质,而单纯强调了最终的文本,静态地分析了组成最终文本的要素:词语,句子,语

法,等形式,忽视了写作的本质.而由这种理论指导的写作教学也是重在教学生表

层的东西,即文章的词汇,句子以及语法,训练的方法通常是练习或者学习别人的

文章.而与此相对,过程写作的观点和理论则抓住了写作的本质,而如果只注重过

程,否定或者忽视最终文本及对其分析和练习的重要性,也是不够的.因为写作的

特点包括实践性,写作固然需要一定的理论知识,但是有了知识并不等于有了能力,

任何写作理论都必须经过多次的实践锻炼,才能转化为写作能力.所以二者其实各

有利弊.要将二者整合起来应用在实践中.本文运用了 White and Arndt 提出的

Writing Process（Six-Recursive）的框架提出了一系列写作教学的策略和技巧，

分析了如何将结果写作法和过程写作法两种写作教学方法有效的结合起来使其取

长补短，共同为大学英语的写作教学服务。

关键词：过程写作结果写作结合

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Abstract

摘要

Introduction ............................................................................................. 1

Chapter One Retrospect of Writing Instruction Development ...................4

1.1 History of Western Writing Theory ......................................................................4

1.2 Schools of Writing Instruction Theory .................................................................5

1.3 Stages of Process Approach Development .......................................................... 8

Chapter Two Comparison of Two Approaches........................................11

2.1 The Concept, Origin and Representative Figure of Product Approach ............. 11

2.2 The Concept, Origin and Representative Figure of Process Approach ..............12

2.3 A Comparison between the Two Writing Instruction Approaches .....................13

2.4 The Status Quo and the Existing Problems of Current Writing Instruction in

China ........................................................................................................................ 16

Chapter Three A Framework Incorporating Two Approaches ................ 18

A Model of the Writing Process ..........................................................................18

3.1 Planning/Generating Ideas ................................................................................. 20

3.2 Focusing .............................................................................................................32

3.3Structuring ...........................................................................................................33

3.4 Drafting .............................................................................................................. 39

3.5 Evaluating .......................................................................................................... 40

3.6 Revising/Revision .............................................................................................. 42

3.7 Product Approach Should Be Incorporated into Process Approach .................. 47

3.7.1 An Analysis of Product Approach by Cognitive Psychology .................... 47

3.7.2 Some Suggestions for Incorporating These Two Approaches ................... 48

Chapter Four Conclusion.......................................................................... 51

Bibliography ..............................................................................................53

在读期间公开发表的论文.......................................................................57

Introduction

I would like to begin this paper with a kind of phenomenon. During college writing

instruction, teachers often complain that their efforts are futile since students’ writing is

void of contents, fraught with errors, poor in language and their ability to write not

improved. According to an investigation made by Zhang Zaixin, (1995: 43) 51% of the

compositions of Chinese students are void of contents and details and there is a lack of

deep exploration of ideas. While students, too, may have something to groan, they

frown that they have no interest and enthusiasm in writing. Neither do they know how

to write. When they are given a writing assignment, they are usually forced to complete

it. They say that their minds are full of knowledge about grammar but with no idea

about the topic, they are at a loss what to write. As a result, they often rack their brains

and are reluctant to hand in their compositions at the eleventh hour. Then what is the

sticking point? For a long time, product approach dominates in writing instruction

method. The standard of good writing is mistakenly believed to be free from grammar,

punctuation, and spelling mistakes. Thus, students are trained to write only for reducing

or eliminating mistakes while the most important thing or the essence of writing is

ignored. Moreover, it seems that students do not attach great importance to writing. The

following are three charts I quoted from Deng Jun, (2002) a scholar in South Central

University ,to show the poor effect of current writing instruction.

Year

Average Score

Nationwide

Average Score of

Elite University

Students

Average Score of

Common

University Students

1997.6

6.06

6.4

5.74

1997.12

6.47

1998.6

6.16

6.32

5.72

1998.12

6.37

6.57

6.33

1999.1

6.41

4.85

6.53

1999.6

6.58

6.49

6.59

2000.1

6.72

6.54

6.73

2000.6

6.6

6.67

6.57

(Chart 1)

Incorporation of Product Approach and Process Approach in English Writing Instruction

Investigation

Subjects

Subject

Number

Investigation Contents

Putting

Equal

Emphasis

on Five

Skills

Highlighting

Listening

Highlighting

Oral English

Highlighting

Reading

Highlighting

Writing

Highlighting

Translation

College

English

Teachers

Percentage

100%

25%

60%

10%

(Chart 2)

Investigation

Subjects

Subject

Number

Investigation Contents

Putting

Equal

Emphasis

on Five

Skills

Highlighting

Listening

Highlighting

Oral English

Highlighting

Reading

Highlighting

Writing

Highlighting

Translation

University

Students

Percentage

90%

40%

22%

60%

30%

(Chart 3)

As is known to all, the minimum score of composition in CET-4 has been set up at

Score 6 since 1997. That is to say, to pass CET-4, not only do students have to get a total

score of or higher than 60, but their composition should score at least 6 points. They

must satisfy these two standards at the same time. Although this has somewhat aroused

students’ attention in writing, and their score in composition is improving, as we can see

from Chart 1, the rate of improvement is rather slow. And from Chart 2 and Chart 3, we

can see neither teachers nor students attach sufficient importance to writing.

Then how to deal with this problem? We may find a solution from the relationship

between language and mental thinking. The nature of writing is mental thinking.

Language is merely the clothes or carrier of thoughts. But the traditionally dominating

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

15 积分 4人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

ABSTRACTForvariousreasons,asfarasstudents(andteachers)areconcerned,writingusuallyappearsanextremelydauntingtask.Firstofall,foralongtimethemainfocuswhenawritingtaskisassignedhastraditionallybeenonthefinalproduct.Theneedtoproduceacoherent,well-writtentextcanbeagreatsourceofstresstothewritersothatthein...

展开>> 收起<<

英语写作教学中结果法与过程法的结合.pdf

共60页,预览6页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

英语写作教学中结果法与过程法的结合

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

推荐作者

热门标签

举报选择: