An Emprical Research on a Task-based Writing EFL Instruction for Students in Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology

Developing a Task-based Writing EFL Instruction for Students: A Case Study in Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology Chen, Chien-Ying

General Education Center, Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology

Abstract

For years, technical vocational colleges have increasingly placed great emphasis on the quality of English education. However, more and more English instructors and educators are concerned about the issue of how to arouse college students awareness and desire for enhancing their present English proficiency level. The subjects in this study were 60 second-grade students in Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology in the Tainan County during the 2009 academic year. The purpose of this study aims to investigate the effects of a task-based EFL instruction on the teaching and learning of writing. In data collection, the students writing tasks, along with the student responses to the questionnaires entitled The Scale of Writing Attitudes (SOWA) were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Based on the data analyses, the finding of the study indicated that almost 90% of the subjects enjoyed the task-based writing instruction and that they were willing to grasp more opportunities to learn writing in English. Key words: Task-based Writing EFL Instruction; Technical Vocational Colleges

1. Introduction

In the twenty-first century, the English language is regarded as one of the most important communication tools for people from academic to business field. Among the four language skills, writing not only provides an available access to effective communication but also enables people worldwide to keep up with this rapidly-changing world. When it comes to an effective approach to the teaching of writing, there is no one size for all during a class design (Raimes, 1991). As it is, EFL teachers need to be equipped with recognitions of the diversity of students and of the complexity of language teaching and learning. Overall, EFL teachers should prepare themselves for the sound knowledge of teaching theories and beware of learners individuals needs respectively.1.1 Statement of the Problem

English is a global language (Crystal, 1997). Many parents in Taiwan are very willing to make their children learn English as early as one year old, for they hope that their children may have a chance to master the English language, get a good job, and live a better life. It might therefore be assumed that these children are able to own a high English proficiency level. However, they need to make more efforts in the learning of writing even though they may perform better in the field of listening, speaking, and reading. Whats worse, more than 10,000 candidates out of over one hundred thousand testers got a zero point in the composition task of their English test in last years JCEE (the Joint College Entrance Examination). Who is responsible for such an disappointing outcome? Parents expose their children to the English learning environment as early as can be; teachers try their best to help students learn English well; students attempt to live up to parents and teachers expectations. Nevertheless, the very sad fact is that the majority of students who take the JCEE can read every word of the writing guidelines only to be worried about how to generate useful ideas from the source text, how to avoid composing Chinese English writing task, and most important of all, how to express their ideas in a well-organized way.As a result, most students seem to have no problems with listening, speaking, and reading, but they have encountered difficulties writing in English. Generally, they do not know how to generate writing ideas, how to organize coherently, how to use discourse markers and rhetorical conventions to put them cohesively into a written text, how to revise text for clearer meaning, how to edit text for appropriate grammar, and how to produce a final product in terms of second language (L2) writing. Frustrated, some students even give up writing because they think, I feel comfortable when I chat with my American friends. We can talk for more than two hours with no problem. How come you always say there are so many donts in my writing?1.2 Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a task-based writing EFL instruction on college students of low English proficiency level (EPL). Specifically, the study tried to probe in an EFL classroom how the teacher and students acquired best interaction, how the teacher actively engaged students in writing activities, how the teacher made students motivated in learning in and outside of the classroom.1.3 Research Questions

This current study was composed of a task-based EFL writing instruction and a questionnaire survey. A survey instrument, The Scale of Writing Attitudes (SOWA), was used to collect the data for investigating EFL college students responses to a task-based writing instruction. The current study focused on the following research questions (RQ). 1. What was the effectiveness of applying a task-based EFL writing instruction to teaching college students of low EPL? 2. What were EFL college students attitudes toward a task-based EFL writing instruction?2. Literature Review

To help college students develop EFL writing ability, along with good interactive and social learning, the teacher-researcher has conducted the current study by the adoption of the process-oriented writing approach, interwoven with guided writing and the task-based instruction. On the other hand, to explore EFL college students attitudes toward the teaching and learning of writing in an EFL classroom, the following two sections of literature were carefully reviewed studies on: (1) the process approach to writing, (2) guided writing, and (3) the task-based instruction.2.1 The Process Approach to WritingOver the past decades, educators have adopted a form-dominated approach to teach writing to EFL students. From the pedagogical point of view, the instructors who apply the form-centered approach to their teaching emphasize accuracy and patterns when students practice and present their writing tasks (Raimes, 1991).

In the late 1970s, more and more teachers and researchers reacted against a form-dominated approach to writing, and gradually developed a process approach. Since then, the process approach has become a new trend in the teaching of L1 and L2 writing. Specifically, this approach encourages students to explore a topic through discussion, reading, and writing. Instead of emphasizing accuracy and patterns, the process approach is featured by the growing use of peer tutoring, and even revision (Topping, 1998; Raimes, 1991). With respect to the use of peer tutoring and revision, students share drafts with peers as well as teachers, and they revise the following draft by using each previous draft and by consulting peer and teacher feedback as a basis of improvement. The above characteristics lead the process approach to a student-centered approach, especially allowing students to acquire autonomy in language learning (Brandl, 2002; Ning, 2008). In order to help students acquire autonomy in language learning, together with developing L2 literacy through writing, explicit instruction in effective writing produces significant benefits for students who have difficulty in learning to write (Afzali & Fakharzadeh, 2009; Al-khatib, 2005; Almog & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1999; Ning, 2008). A number of studies have shown that writing is a series of complex composing processes, including planning, translating, and reviewing (Flower & Hayes, 1980, 1981). According to their studies, the planning process contains setting goals, and generating and organizing ideas. The translating process converts the writers ideas into words. Reviewing, inclusive of evaluating and editing, takes place when the writer is not satisfied with his own work, considers alternative ideas, or fail to plan his work successfully. In other words, it is the writers awareness of the interaction between the above composing processes that enables a language learner to produce a meaningful, satisfactory writing (Badger & White, 2000; Hyland, 2004). 2.2 Guided Writing

Guided writing has two advantages as follows. To begin with, it communicates high expectations and improves the quality of student writing (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The phased production of draft, and final production of draft, and final product, with teacher and peer feedback at each stage, enables students to learn how to cut off redundant information and organize their ideas into an interesting writing.

Secondly, this method has both a process and product orientation (Brandl, 2002). Since one of the characteristics of the process approach is that students are allowed to have some time to decide on the topic of writing, such EFL learners as college students may benefit more from actively interacting with peers and teachers in the classroom, still more complete a meaningful writing draft. As Brown points out, the current emphasis on writing must of course be seen in the perspective of a balance between process and product (Brown, 2001, p. 337).

Broadly speaking, writing is a way of life. As far as students are concerned, without a good ability to translate their ideas into words, they cannot pass the course. Writing is crucial to students academic performance and success.

Besides, writing opens a door to better communication between people. Writing has played an important part in ones life. Partly because writing is the most effective means by which one can translate ideas into words in the absence of the writer. Partly because writing enables people to show their understanding about what has been learned at school or at work. Accordingly, writing represents a social activity, in which social learning helps individual learning, cognitive structure and interaction between people (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Brown, 2001; Topping, 1998; Rada, 1998). 2.3 The Task-based InstructionBased on the theory of task-based learning, a number of positive findings have supported the pedagogical advantages of this approach (Stoller, 1997; Omaggio-Hadley, 2001). It is acknowledged that the task-based learning is potentially motivating, stimulating, empowering, and challenging. Besides, the task-based instruction lies at the heart of autonomy in language learning. Some supporting research has shown that a task-based approach offers learners an encouraging way to achieve a range of goals in terms of effective language learningbeing responsible for deciding what is to be learned, when, how, in what order, and by what means (Holec, 1981; Legutke & Thomas, 1991). Therefore, students can work on their own, in small groups, or as a class to complete a project, sharing their ideas and real life experiences (Brandl, 2002).

Seeing that the task-based instruction is student-centered, the teacher plays an important role in providing support and guidance throughout the learning of writing in and out of the classroom. After the experience of writing a meaningful final product, the students have found themselves more capable of expressing their own ideas in English and evaluating peers work. Simultaneously, they have gradually developed a sense of dignity and even mental growth, while improving their own language. 3. Methodology

3.1 Population The population of this study was composed of sixty students who majored in Nursing and took an English course at Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology. They were in their second year at college. This study was conducted from December 10 to 24, 2009. It was designed as a three-week in-class writing workshop, included in an 18-week English course during the first semester of the 2009 academic year. The purpose was that these college students would be encouraged to have the experience of writing regardless of their low English proficiency level. Just one out of the sixty students had passed the GEPT elementary level, while the rest either were not equipped with a good English ability or were quite afraid to take the GEPT test. Dont tell me that I am old enough to take the test. Im not ready for it, said more than half of the class. All of them had studied English for more than six years, and had two 50-minute-long classes per week. The teacher-researcher has more than 5-year experience of teaching English at college.

3.2 Sample Selection and Procedures

For most of the EFL instructors, grading and correcting students writing drafts may be rather time-consuming. Yet, one possible effective solution is the writing workshop. Since 59 out of the sixty students did not pass the GEPT elementary level, it was assumed that the class belonged to the elementary English proficiency level. Moreover, only one out of the 60 subjects had just passed the GEPT elementary level, and she agreed to work with the other classmates in a group. Therefore, all of them were classified as elementary level, with no other experimental group to compare.The textbook entitled Get the Point 2, published by Caves Books in 2009, was originally selected to teach basic grammar, sentence structures, and a number of writing strategies to all the second-grade students at Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology. This textbook might be a basic resource to guide those students and improve their writing ability. However, taken the learners interest and real life experiences into consideration, an interesting reading material other than the textbook would be another good choice to arouse the college students interest in what to read and what to write.Therefore, the teacher-researcher first asked the students to offer some interesting stories they had heard before. Among the stories mentioned, the students voted for Three Little Pigs. When asked why they preferred to this one, dozens of the students agreed, The story is easy to understand and the names of the characters are convenient to remember. In consequence, the teacher-researcher selected the storybook entitled Three Little Pigs, published by Ladybird Books in 1993 (see Appendix A for the full text).

3.3 Procedures

One of the aims of this study is to examine the effectiveness of applying a task-based writing EFL instruction to teaching college students of low EPL, while the other to explore these college students attitudes toward the writing activities related to the task-based writing instruction.3.3.1 Writing Stage

To create an interactive learning environment in which college students of low EPL may enjoy the learning of English writing, the teacher-researcher managed to develop a 3-week task-based EFL writing course, and then conducted a questionnaire survey to evaluate the effects of this writing instruction on college students. The frame of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Task 1. Preparing (by reading a text)

Task 2. Interacting (by asking and answering text-related questions)

Task 3. Planning (by discussing ideas in small groups)

Task 4. Organizing (by translating group ideas into a 120-word draft)

Task 5. Editing (by teacher and peer evaluating the first draft)

Task 6. Reviewing (by re-writing the first draft in small groups)

Task 7. Responding (by teacher and peer evaluating the second draft)

Task 8. Feedback (by answering their own responses to the SOWA)

Figure 1. The Framework of This Study

In preparation for the writing workshop, the teacher-researcher shared with the students how the workshop would wok best for them and why they were encouraged to read the story at home before the first week of writing stage in this study.

To the teacher-researchers great relief, more than half of the students amazingly did finish reading the story before the first writing class started. The teacher spent fifty minutes asking the ten groups twenty text-related questions, in the form of group-competition. To create an exciting and challenging atmosphere, each group had one minute to deal with questions asked by the teacher--thirty seconds to discuss possible answers, thirty seconds to answer in complete sentences. The group that failed to make it could not get a point, and, at the same time, the other groups had a chance to answer and win a point. The number of points won by each group would be a bonus added to their final examination. In addition to the bonus plus, the students were reminded of the importance of understanding the close connection between good reading comprehension and successful writing performance.

To make good use of limited time and resources, each group were given 15 minutes to decide on how to exhibit their comprehension of the text The Three Little Pigs. Before the writing task started, the students were required to follow simple criteria for deciding whether they finished their writing task or notno less than 120 words, which was the basic rule used both in the English composition test of JCEE and GEPT intermediate level. Although most of the students complained that this is an impossible job, yet after 15-minute discussion, nine of the groups chose to revise some of the plot based on the original story. Only one out of them had no idea what to do. The moment an agreement was reached, each group began to work on their first 120-word draft during the remainder of class, about 32 minutes left. Six groups finished within 35 minutes; four within 48.

As Zeiser (1999) emphasizes, writing is a recursive process which involves a dynamic of thinking, writing, rethinking, and rewriting. Through the processes of thinking and writing, the students in this study moved forward and worked together to complete their writing task. Two thirds of the students said, Wow! I cant believe it. I made it at the last minute. This is my first time to write more than 50 words in English although I did this job with my classmates. But I think I am as cool as a cucumber! Group As first draft writing sample for the Three Little Pigs is shown as follows.

My name is a big bad pig. I likes to eating baby wolf. I love drink oranges soda and apples juice. I no eat breakfast this morning. I am hungry, and also thirsty too. I wanting to eat, but I am no way find it. There is a straw house in the Ocean Road. I want to walk inside house and saw a tiny wolf. he look very cute and delicious. I am wanting to eat it. I think I can eat one minute. I am so happy and I take a shower before I start eat big meal. When I was taking a shower, the mother come home. She see me and hit me. I soon run out of the straw house. Im very hungry, but Im lucky because I am not die.

For the workshop in the following week, the teacher discussed some of the most common problems such as punctuation, singular and plural forms of countable nouns. To reinforce the correct usage of the grammatical rules taught previously, the teacher then distributed the first drafts randomly to the ten groups. Each member in each group received one copy. For example, Group B got Group As first draft, with six copies of the same draft for each member in Group B. At the sight of the copy, everyone was surprised to see no red marks on it. All the members did not know what to do. The teacher-researcher encouraged Group B to read aloud the draft together and circle any segment that looked wrong in the peers writing. Then they could discuss, consult the dictionary, and tried to write down the correct answer beside the error. Particularly, they would get one point as they found one mistake; they would get another point when they could correct each error. Next, every group was given fifteen minutes to read, think about, and correct possible errors in the draft writing which was finished by one of the other groups. While they did so, the teacher circulated around the classroom, scanning the drafts, ascertaining that every student was trying hard to find any possible error, and acting as a resource. Group As first draft writing was corrected by Group B after fifteen-minute discussion and is shown as follows.

Im a big bad pig. I like to eat baby wolf. I love to drink oranges soda and apples juice. I dont eat breakfast this morning. I am hungry, and thirsty too. I want to eat, but I cant find it. There is a straw house in the Ocean Road. I want to walk inside house and saw a tiny wolf. He look very cute and delicious. I want to eat it. I think I can eat one minute. I am so happy and I take a shower before I start to eat big meal. When I was taking a shower, the mother come home. She sees me and hit me. I very fast run out of the straw house. Im very hungry, and Im lucky because I no die.

Honestly speaking, it is quite difficult for teachers to motivate low achievers to learn with interest. However, the teacher-researcher has found that most low achievers enjoy the feelings of being encouraged through reachable gifts like scores, which gives a guarantee of their hard work. Moreover, the 5-year experience of teaching at college helps the teacher-researcher figure out the fact that low achievers are willing to outdo themselves as long as they keep their mind on learning, with a reachable target and simple criteria agreed by the teacher and the students. For example, the first rule is that every group has to submit a 120-word writing draft, otherwise each member of the group fail to get 10 points in their final exam. The second rule is that each groups member can get one point when they can find a mistake in the writing draft and one more point if they can correct the mistake. Take Group As first writing draft for example. I likes to eating baby wolf. Group B corrects the sentenceI like to eat baby wolfand they can get four points because of two correct answers like and eat.As Zeiser (1999) emphasizes, writing is a recursive process which involves a dynamic of thinking, writing, rethinking, and rewriting. Through the processes of thinking and writing, the students in this study moved forward and worked together to complete their writing task. Two thirds of the students said, Wow! I cant believe it. I made it at the last minute. This is my first time to write more than 50 words in English although I did this job with my classmates. But I think I am as cool as a cucumber!For the workshop in the third week, all the ten groups submitted their revised drafts, not less than 120 words. Because of the stimulation of their imagination, and the writing activities, most of the groups were able to write well-constructed paragraphs within the limited time, no more than 35 minutes. Group As second draft is shown as follows. Im a big bad pig. I like to eat baby wolves. I love to drink orange soda and apple juice. I dont eat breakfast this morning. I am hungry and thirsty too. I want to eat, but I cant find it. There is a straw house on the Ocean Road. I ran to the house. I walk inside the house and sees a tiny wolf. He look so cute and delicious. I want to eat it. My mouth is watering. I think I can eat it one minute. I am so happy and I take a shower before I start to eat big meal. When I was taking a shower, a mother wolf comes back home. She sees me and hits me. I run out of the straw house very fast. I am lucky because I do not die.

3.3.2 Evaluating Stage: Administering the SOWATo understand EFL college students attitudes toward the task-based writing instruction, a survey instrument entitled The Scale of Writing Attitudes (SOWA), was used for gathering the study data. Besides two demographic items, the 10-item SOWA was an important tool to investigate EFL learners writing attitudes (WA). A five-point Likert-type scale was adopted to measure the items of the SOWA: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Uncertain = 3, Disagree = 2, and Strongly Disagree = 1. The higher the score is, the more positive the attitude expresses (see Appendix B for the SOWA items).

After a pilot study, the revised survey questionnaires were distributed to 60 students. A total of 60 responses were collected. Among the 60 surveys, all of them were usable, resulting in a 100% usable return rate.

The first part of the survey instrument comprised three items of demographic information pertaining to learners gender, English proficiency level, and English learning background. The respondents demographic data were summarized in Table 1. Data on respondents gender show that two of the respondents were male students (n =2, 3.33%) and female students (n =58, 96.67%).

Additionally, this study identified two types of students in term of the amount of time spent on English learning experiences: 6 to 8 years, and 9 to 10 years or more. About three-fourth respondents (n = 43, 71.67%) reported that they had studied English for 6-8 years, and 17 respondents (28.33%) for 9-10 years or more.

Analyzing the data about these subjects learning experiences, the teacher-researcher cannot help wonderingHow come many of them turn out to be learners of low English proficiency level or low achievers after having learned English for over 6 years?Table 1. Summary of Respondents Demographic DataCharacteristicsFrequencyValid Percentage

Gender

Male23.33

Female5896.67

English Proficiency Level

elementary60100

English Learning Background

6-8 yrs4371.67

9-10 yrs or more1728.33

Note. n = 60.

4. Result and Discussion4.1 The Effectiveness of a Task-based EFL Writing InstructionTo answer the RQ-1, an overall description for the subjects academic performance on the writing tasks in class is not only presented in the procedures mentioned above, but it is also illustrated in the subjects active engagement in the writing activities during the writing stage. Excitedly, as many as forty-three students have told the teacher-researcher, Its not easy, but this is my first time to write down my ideas in English. I dont know it is so wonderful to talk in class, especially when our group can talk together and happily finish the work. How cool! When are we going to do it again?4.2 EFL Learners Writing Attitudes

To answer the RQ-2, Table 2 presents the mean values and standard deviations for subjects writing attitudes, which were explored on a 5-point Likert-type scale. According to Table 2, the mean values for the dimension of writing attitude (WA) ranged from 3.54 to 4.54. The composite mean value for EFL learners attitudes toward English instruction in writing was 4.15, which was higher than the middle point 3.00. Overall, this composite mean value indicated that the majority of subjects had fairly positive attitudes toward the task-based EFL writing instruction.Among the 10 WA statements, five items (01, 03, 06, 09, and 10) were over the composite mean value (M = 4.15). That indicated that most subjects showed rather positive attitudes toward the effects of writing activities. Of the 10 items for the writing attitudes, the highest mean value was 4.54 (Item 1). That indicated that most subjects considered reading a familiar story to be a very interesting task for their English learning (M for Item 10 = 4.41) as well as the reading material were well suited for their English proficiency level.

Table 2. EFL College Students Writing AttitudesSurvey ItemsMSDRank

01. Reading interesting texts enhances my motivation in the learning of English.4.540.501

02. Expressing myself through English writing activities does not scare me at all.3.541.1010

03. Reading interesting texts enhances my motivation in the learning of writing.4.350.793

04. I hope that my English teacher will design more writing activities for me to improve writing skills.4.05 0.728

05. The reading material chosen by the teacher is suitable for my English proficiency level.4.080.727

06. The task-based writing class enhances my learning efficiency.4.250.565

07. Group discussion activities help me to think and write.4.080.926

08. I dont think I can enlarge my knowledge about vocabulary through learning to write in English.3.920.719

09. Learning to write in English is very important.4.410.722

10. The learning tasks designed by the teacher are suitable for my English proficiency level.4.270.724

Note. The composite mean value was 4.15.5. Conclusion and Limitation5.1 ConclusionIn learning a language, writing is an essential language skill. Writing provides a good way for language learners to express what they have learned. The writing process is a valuable learning experience for most language learners, especially for low-EPL college students. On the one hand, low-EPL college students can develop their L2 literacy when they are more willing to get engaged in writing activities. Also, when they learn to share their ideas and real life experiences through group discussion in class, it is much more likely for them to work together and complete a writing task with the help from their group members and the teacher.

This study found that most college students supported the necessity of the learning of writing skills. They agreed that they preferred to write together. Partly because they are lacking in confidence. Partly because they lack sufficient opportunities to write in English. They first approach writing in fear and trembling. Then they feel more comfortable during the period of the writing stage, accompanied by peers and the teacher.Specifically, along with class time spent playing some Q&A games, discussing problems with writing drafts, looking for mistakes in peers work, and creating an in-class writing workshops, the subjects communicated their own views, integrated each others ideas, and, most important of all, collaboratively achieved their goalwriting a 120-word draft.Interestingly, some of the subjects said, When I am reading others writing, I strongly feel it is my first time to talk and act as if I were an English teacher. I want to be professional when I make comments. For these college students, it was indeed a good experience of social learning as well as language learning in the classroom.

5.2 Limitation

Given that the subjects were in the same class and that 59 out of them were of low EPL, the researcher had the difficulty conducting this study by comparing the similarities and differences between a group of high EPL and a group of low EPL, the result of this study might not be general enough to describe the effects of a task-based EFL writing instruction on all the other college students in Taiwan. However, it is implied that EFL learners of low EPL are in need of active teacher involvement, along with a well organized class schedule and a clear pedagogical rationale, to become productive language learners and that higher education institutions should provide the 21st century-readied teacher for the 21st century students (Zita, Silye, & Wiwczaroski, 2009).

References[1] Al-Khatib, M. (2005). English in the workplace: An analysis of the communication needs of tourism and banking personnel. Asian EFL Journal, 17(2). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/site[2]Afzali, K., & Fakharzadeh, M. (2009). A needs analysis survey: The case of tourism letter writing in Iran. English for Specific Purposes World, 8(1). Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.esp-world.info/[3]Almog, T., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1999). Teachers are peer learners: Professional development in an advanced computer learning environment. In A. M. ODonnel & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press, Ch 12, 285-313.

[4] Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.

[5]Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[6]Brandl, Klaus. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher-to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 87-107.

[7]Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

[8]Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. (March, 1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE: 3-7.

[9]Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 151-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[10]Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[11]Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.

[12]Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31-50.

[13]-----(1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

[14]Fraser, Carol A. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through Reading. SSLA, 21, 225-241.

[15]Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press for the Council of Europe.

[16]Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

[17]Ning, Z. (2008). The effective teaching of the genre of hotel brochure. English for Specific Purposes World, 7(3). Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.esp-world.info/[18]Omaggio-Hadley, A. 2001. Teaching Language in Context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

[19]Rada, R. (1998). Efficiency and effectiveness in computer-supported peer-peer learning. Computers and Education, 30, 137-146.

[20]Raimes, Ann. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-30.

[21]Stoller, F. L. (1997). Project work. A means to promote language content. Forum, 35, 1-10.

[22]Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276. [23]Zeisere, Pamela A. (1999). Teaching process and product: Crafting and responding to student writing assignments. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 593-595.[24] Zita, J., Silye, M., & Wiwczaroski, T. B. (2009). L2 skills preparation for scholarship students. English for Specific Purposes World, 8(2). Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.esp-world.info/

Appendix A

Appendix B

:

1

1012345

112345

212345

312345

412345

512345

612345

712345

812345

912345

1012345

( )

1. 1. 2.

2. ( )

1. 34 ()

2. 57 ()

3. 89 ()PAGE 15