台灣研究生學術英語習得之集體個案研究-以英語系碩士生為例

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林秀虹 Xiu-hong Lin
論文名稱：	台灣研究生學術英語習得之集體個案研究-以英語系碩士生為例 A Collective Case Study of the Acquisition of Disciplinary Enculturation among Master’s Students in an English Department in Taiwan
指導教授：	周若漢 Robert Johanson
口試委員:	陳聖傑 Sheng-Jie Chen 賀一平 I-ping Ho
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 應用外語系 Department of Applied Foreign Languages
論文出版年：	2010
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	180
中文關鍵詞：	社會實踐、教化融入、紮根理論、合法邊緣參與者、隱喻、情境學習
外文關鍵詞：	Community of Practice, disciplinary enculturation, Grounded Theory, legitimate peripheral participation, metaphor, situated learning
相關次數：	點閱：416 下載：1
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究以台灣一所應用外語系的五名台灣碩士生進行一學期學術英語習得之集體個案研究。資料蒐集為六個月期間的結構式訪談和半結構式訪談參與者和參與者的老師、參與者和非參與者的觀察、參與者書寫文件的參考分析、個人的通訊、大聲思考協定、刺激回憶會議、焦點團體訪談和參與者在 Blackboard學習管理系統的參與。資料根據紮根理論(Strauss & Corbin, 1998)做質性分析。此研究發現參與者: (a) 陳述難以確定”可行的”碩士論文的題目；(b) 沒有從同儕中得到適當的知識鷹架；(c) 表達不確定如何組織他們的研究發現為社會實踐可接受的碩士論文格式；(d) 因為害怕佔據指導教授太多時間，經常不願請教指導教授；(e) 因為得到反覆循環不完善的教化而頻繁考慮暫停學業。綜合言之，研究者以此研究的結果與”浪人”或”無主武士”的隱喻來了解參與者的集體個案經驗，這些問題可說明他們寫論文經驗的軌跡是否遵循從”合法的邊緣參與者”進入此系所的社會實踐。此外，這研究總結以社會實踐法討論在研究所階段的學術課程中，當英語為外國語言的研究生必須以英語來報告他們的研究發現的內容時的境況。此研究的限制和對這領域潛在的實用性與教學貢獻分別在此報告的討論與總結闡述。

This study was a one-semester collective case study exploration of disciplinary enculturation among five Taiwanese master’s students enrolled in an applied foreign language program in Taiwan. More specifically, it sought to shed light on participants’ experiences composing their master’s theses in English from a Community of Practice (CoP) and metaphorical perspective. Gathered over a six-month period via structured and semi-structured interviews with the participants and their instructors, participant and non-participant observation, referential analysis of participant’s written documents, personal communication, think-aloud protocols, stimulated-recall sessions, focus-group interviews, and participants’ participation on the Blackboard Learning Management System, data were analyzed according to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) Grounded Theory analytical approach. Among the study’s findings, it was discovered that the participants: (a) reported extreme difficulty in locating “doable” topics for their master’s theses; (b) did not feel as if they received adequate scaffolding from their peers; (c) expressed uncertainty about how to “package” their research findings into the CoP’s acceptable master’s format; (d) often appeared reluctant to consult their advisors for fear of occupying too much of their advisors’ time; and (e) frequently considered dropping out the Program due to what they received as recurring cycles of faulty disciplinary enculturation. Viewed together, this study’s results - and the ronin, or “master-less samurai” metaphor that the researcher came to see in the participants’ collective experiences, calls into question whether or not their dissertating experiences could be said to be perceived as inward trajectories of “legitimate peripheral participation” into the Program’s CoP. Moreover, the study’s concluding discussion problematizes the CoP approach to the situation of graduate students enrolled in graduate-level academic programs in which they are required to report their research findings in an EFL English writing context. The study’s limitations and potential practical and pedagogical contributions to the field are delineated in this report’s discussion and conclusion sections, respectively.

TABLE OF CONTENTS                      Page
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………… xii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………. xiii
List of Diagrams ………………………………………………………………………………… xiv

CHAPTER 1:  INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………. 1
Purpose of Study …………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………………………………... 2
Rationale ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 5
Research Questions …………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Terminology ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………………………… 9
Preview of the Remainder of the Thesis …………………………………………………………. 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………... 11

Community Socialization ………………………………………………………………………….. 12
The Construct of Community ……………………………………………………………………... 12
Knowledge Scaffolding from CoP  Perspective ……………………………………... 15
Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) ……………………………………………. 16
Trajectory to Become Full Participants ……………………………………….. 17
Non-participation …………………………………………………………….... 18
Summary of Community of Practices …………………………………………………………….. 19

Metaphor……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Theory of Metaphor …………………………………………………………………. 20
Conceptual Metaphor ………………………………………………………………... 21
Some Examples of Metaphor ………………………………………………………... 22
Conceptual Metaphor as a Set of Mappings ……………………………………….... 23
Metaphor for Discourse Community ………………………………………………... 24

The Conception of Disciplinary Enculturation ………………………………………………….. 27

Prior’s Research on Literate Activity in Graduate Education ……………………….. 30
Learning the Literacy Practices of Graduate School: Insiders’ Reflections on Academic Enculturation ………………………………………………………………………… 31
Disciplinary Enculturation among Graduate Students ………………………………. 33
EAP writing for Non-native English speaking students ……………………………... 34
Voice ……………………………………………………………………………... 35
Advisor-advisee Relationship ……………………………………………………. 36
Difficulties on their disciplinary community ……………………………………….... 37
Integrative Summary ……………………………………………………………………………….... 39

CHAPTER 3: METHOD ………………………………………………………………………….. 40
Design ………………………………………………………………………………………………... 40
Participants……………………………………………………………………………………………41
The Focal Participants ……………………………………………………………… 42
Leo …………………………………………………………………………….. 43
English Learning Experience and Career Plan ……………………………... 43
As a Writer ………………………………………………………………….. 44
Ruby ……………………………………………………………………………. 45
English Learning Experience and Career Plan …………………………….. 46
As a Writer …………………………………………………………………. 46
Molly ………………………………………………………………………….. 48
English Learning Experience and Career Plan …………………………….. 48
As a Writer …………………………………………………………………. 49
Donna ………………………………………………………………………..... 50
English Learning Experience and Career Plan …………………………….. 51
As a Writer …………………………………………………………………. 51
Emily ………………………………………………………………………...... 52
English Learning Experience and Career Plan …………………………….. 52
As a Writer …………………………………………………………………. 53

Data Sources and Procedure …………………………………………………………………….. 55
Interviews …………………………………………………………………………………………... 57
Interviews with Focal Participants ………………………………………………….. 58
Focus Group Interviews …………………………………………………………….. 59
Interviews with Professors ………………………………………………………….. 59
Classroom Observations …………………………………………………………….. 60
Think-aloud Protocols ………………………………………………………………. 61
Stimulated-recall sessions …………………………………………………………… 61
Personal Correspondence ………………………………………………………….... 61
Written Documents Submitted by the Focal Participants …………………………… 62
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………... 63
Researcher ………………………………………………………………………………………… 64
Research Site ……………………………………………………………………………………… 65
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ……………………………………………………………………….. 71
Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 71
Preliminary Concerns ……………………………………………………………………...... 72
Adjusting the Focus of the Study ……………………………………………………….. 72
Definition of “Academic Writing” ……………………………………………………… 72
Caveat Empter ……………………………………………………………………………..... 74
The Ronin Metahpor ………………………………………………………………………… 75
Differences between the Focal Participants and Ronin …………………………………. 76
High-stakes Environment of Graduate School ………………………………………...... 78
Struggling to find adequate topic and model for their thesis writing ……………………...... 78
Advisor ………………………………………………………………………………...... 81
Research ………………………………………………………………………………… 84
Paradigm ………………………………………………………………………………… 86
Disciplinary Enculturation …………………………………………………………….... 88

Respondents did not receive adequate scaffolding from their peers ………………………... 91
Full Participation ………………………………………………………………………... 92
Interactions between Experienced Participant and Novices ………………………………... 94
Reporting their Research Findings in Program-Appropriate Manner …………………….... 96
Sharing written text with others ………………………………………………………….. 97
Strategy …………………………………………………………………………………... 98
Academic Writing ………………………………………………………………………... 101
Reluctance to Consult their Advisors ………………………………………………………. 107
The Participants & the Masterless Samurai (Ronin) Metaphor …………………………. 108

Several Students Mentioned Possibly Dropping Out the Program Due to What We Received as Faulty Disciplinary Enculturation ………………………………………………………….. 110

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………….. 115
Limitations of the Study …………………………………………………………………… 115
Limitations on the Interpretation ………………………………………………………. 115
Limitations of Research Design ………………………………………………………... 116
Ethical Dilemmas ………………………………………………………………………. 116
Discussion of the Findings in Terms of the Study’s Research Questions ………………….. 117
Research Question One ……………………………………………………………….... 117
Research Question Two ……………………………………………………………….... 124
Research Question Three ……………………………………………………………….. 133
Implications for the Field …………………………………………………………………... 137
Pedagogical Implications ………………………………………………………………. 138
Recommendations for Further Research ……………………………………………….. 139
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………….. 141

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………. 144
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………………….. 152
Appendix A: Structured Interviews with Focal Participants ……………………………… 152
Appendix B: Structured Interviews with Focal Participants’ Professor …………………... 153
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ........................................................................................... 154
Interview One ............................................................................................................... 154
Interview Two ............................................................................................................... 156
Interview Three ............................................................................................................. 156
Interview Four .............................................................................................................. 158
Focus Group Interview One ......................................................................................... 159
Focus Group Interview Two ......................................................................................... 161
Appendix D: Classroom Observation ................................................................................... 163
Appendix E: Interaction with Focal Participants .................................................................. 166
Appendix F: An Example of the Data Collection and Coding Process ................................ 169
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 171
Memo ............................................................................................................................ 172
Storyline ........................................................................................................................ 173
Appendix G: Post-research data ........................................................................................... 175
Ruby’s Disciplinary Enculturation Process .................................................................. 176
Follow-up Interview with Leo ...................................................................................... 177
Appendix H: Sample List of Emergent Grounded Theory Axial Coding Categories .......... 179
Appendix I: Sample of Leo’s Master Thesis ……………………………………………… 180











List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Basic Activity Theory ……………………………………………………………… 14
Figure 2.2: Cole and Engeström’s Activity system …………………………………………….. 14
Figure 2.3: Communities of Practice …………………………………………………………… 17
Figure 2.4: Legitimate Peripheral Participation ………………………………………………… 17
Figure 2.6: Discourse as Text, Interaction and Context ………………………………………… 21
Figure 3.1: Disciplinary Enculturation Process in the Program ………………………………… 68
Figure 5.1: Learning Community ……………………………………………………………….. 120
Figure 5.2: Perspectives on Generic Variation ………………………………………………….. 123
Figure 5.3: Focal Participants’ Difficulties in Composition Master’s Theses ………………….. 127
Figure 5.4: Subcategories of ESP ……………………………………………………………….. 129
Figure 5.5: Persuasion Scale …………………………………………………………………….. 135













List of Tables

Table 2.1: Source Domain and Target Domain …………………………………………………. 23
Table 2.2: Source Domain and Target Domain ………………………………………………… 23
Table 2.3: Excerpts of the Examples of Metaphors for Discourse Community ……………….. 26
Table 3.1: Issues in Learner Transition ………………………………………………………... 54
Table 3.2: Data Collection ……………………………………………………………………... 69
Table 3.3: Data Analysis Chart ………………………………………………………………… 70
Table 4.1: Comparison of Focal Participants and Ronin ………………………………………. 108
Table 5.1: Mwanza’s Eight-Step-Model of Component Analysis in Activity Theory …………. 120
Table 5.2: Synthesis of the Participants’ Disciplinary Enculturation Activity System ………… 121














List of Diagrams
Diagram 2.1: Varying Perceptions of Language Description ……………………………………. 29

                                

Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy:
Graduate students and their mentors. [Abstract]. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 23–34.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: What motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 187-205.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre Knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/ culture/ power. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 4-18.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553-571.
Caballero, R. (2003). “Metaphor and genre: The presence and role of metaphor in the building review”. [Abstract]. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 145-167.
Casanave, C., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2008). Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Casanave, C., & Vandrick, S. (Eds.). (2003). Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Casanave, C.P., & Li, X. (2009). Learning the literacy practices of graduate
school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation. The Electronic Journal
for English as a Second Language, 13(1). Retrieved February 8, 2010, from
http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/past-issues/volume13/ej49/ej49r7/
Casanave, C. P. (2010). Task risk?: A case study of three doctoral students writing qualitative dissertations at an American university in Japan. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 1-16.
Cho, S. (2009). Disciplinary enculturation experiences of five East Asian doctoral students in US-based second language studies programmes [Abstract]. Asia Pacific Journal of Education Abstracts, 29, 295-310.
Connor, U., & Mayberry, S. (1996). Learning discipline-specific academic writing: A case study of a Finnish graduate student in the United States. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 231-253). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distribute approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salmon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and Educational Considerations (pp. 1-46). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning How to Use Citations for Knowledge Transformation: Non-Native Doctoral Students’ Dissertation Writing in Science. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 428-457.
Duff, P. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2008). Relativity. In Encyclopedia of language and education. (2nd ed.). (Vol. 8, pp.257-270). Science+Business Media, LLC.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Farahani, G. O. (2003). Existence and importance of online interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 127-150.
Flowerdew, J. (Ed.) (2002), Academic discourse, London: Longman.
Freadman, A. (1994). Anyone for tennis? In P. Medway (Ed.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 43-66). London: Taylor and Francis.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1998). Educational Research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plain, NY: Longman Publishers U.S.A.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the “Good kids” to the “Worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35-67.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin, & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 185-235). London: Routledge.
Helms-Park, R., & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245-265.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 1–12.
Johanson, R. (2001). The role of interactions in academic writing: A collective case study of five Taiwanese doctoral students in a graduate school of education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Johanson, R. (2003). Extrapolating practice from theory: A user-friendly guide to conducting grounded theory in the social sciences. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic Studies, Taiwan, 5, 1-38.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiely, R. (2004). Learning to critique in EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 211-227.
Kittay, E. (1987). Metaphor: its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövesces, Z. (2007) Metaphor in culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Krase, E. (2007). Maybe the communication between us was not enough: Insider a dysfunctional advisor/L2 advisee relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 55-70.
Lakoff, G. (1993). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’ in A. Ortony (ed.): Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-251.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Throne, S. L. (2006). Socio-cultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://eslenglishclassroom.com/Art-05.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235-260.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series.
Liao, X. (2004). The need for Communicative Language Teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58 (3), 270-273.
Lin, H. J., & Warden, C. (1996). Different attitudes among non-English major EFL students. The Internet TESL Journal (online). Retrieved September 13, 2010, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Warden-Difference/
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language
learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2),
268–294.
Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 151–179.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mohan, A. B., & Lo, A. W. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer
and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 315-534.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly. 38, 573-603.
Mostafa, H. (2005). Legitimate peripheral participation and supervising Ph.D. students [Abstract]. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 557-570.
Mwanza, D. (2001). Where theory meets practice: A case for an activity theory based methodology to guide computer system design. In Proceedings of Interact 2001: 8th IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, July 9-13, 2001. Retrieved June 30, 2010 from http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/pdf/kmi-01-7.pdf
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409-429.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. (pp. 159-171). Essex, England: Pearson Education.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 307-322.
Prior, P. (1995). Tracing Authoritative and Internally Persuasive Discourses: A Case Study of Response, Revision, and Disciplinary Enculturation. [Abstract]. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 288-325.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55-81.
Relativity. In Wikipedia.
Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice
Relativity. In Wikipedia.
Retrieved June 8, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_community
Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 55-67.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), 29-51.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). The basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Thompson, P. (2005). Points of focus and position: Intertextual reference in PhD theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 307-323.
Toohey, K. (1998). “Breaking them up, taking them away”: ESL students in grade 1. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 61-84.
Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxisim and the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2007). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge – seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/CCI_downloads/wenger_7principles.pdf
Woodward-Kron, R. (2004). ‘Discourse communities’ and ‘writing apprenticeship’: An investigation of these concepts in undergraduate education students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 139-161.
Yakhontova, T. (2006). “Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 153-167.
Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs. (pp. 78-88). Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~diepthai/images/The%20impact%20of%20confucianism.pdf
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Retrieved June 19, 2010, from
htttp://www.soberit.hut.fi/~mmantyla/work/Research_Methods/Case_Study/Case%20Study%20Research.doc
Zhao, C. G., & Llosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13, 153-170.
Zwiers, J. (2006). Integrating academic language, thinking, and content: Learning scaffolds for non-native speakers in the middle grades. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 317-332.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文